1506                                      Vetoes

troller explained that although the bill was designed as a local bill,
his office was of the opinion that it is not a local bill, but of such
a nature that it would disturb the entire State setup with respect to
State wholesale beer licenses.

Because of the doubt expressed by the Attorney General, and the
views expressed by Mr. Roger V. Laynor, Chief of the Alcoholic
Beverages Division of the Comptroller's office, I am forced to veto
this particular bill and am returning the same to your body.

Sincerely yours,

(S) J. MILLARD TAWES,

JMT/S/db                                                                       Governor.

House Bill No. 690—Baltimore, Worcester, Harford and Kent
                            Counties; Testamentary Law

AN ACT to add new Section 47A to Article 93 of the Annotated Code
of Maryland (1957 Edition), title "Testamentary Law", sub-title
"Administration by an Executor", to follow immediately after
Section 47 thereof, relating to and prohibiting certain actions of
banks and trust companies with respect to administration of testa-
mentary estates in Harford County, BALTIMORE, WORCES-
TER AND KENT COUNTIES.

Honorable Perry 0. Wilkinson
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

After serious consideration, I have concluded that I should veto
House Bill No. 289 and House Bill No. 690, which were enacted at
the recent session of the General Assembly. In accordance with
Article II, Section 17 of the Constitution of Maryland, I herewith
return these two bills to the House of Delegates, in which they ori-
ginated, and will set forth my objections to them herein.

These similar (but not identical) bills relate to and would prohibit
certain acts of banks and trust companies with respect to adminis-
tration of testamentary estates in Talbot, Harford, Baltimore, Wor-
cester and Kent Counties. I am advised that were these bills to become
law, Maryland would be the first State in the nation with such legis-
lation on its statute books. In view of the long and honorable history
of the banks and trust companies of this State in the administration
of estates as; fiduciaries, it seems to me that compelling reasons for
legislation of this sort ought to exist before these bills are allowed
to become law; With due deference to the General Assembly, it is
my belief that such compelling reasons do not exist. To the contrary,
I believe that there are many cogent reasons why these bills should
not become law.

Essentially, these bills have to do with the relationship between
lawyers and corporate fiduciaries. Historically, this relationship in
the State of Maryland has been harmonious. In Baltimore City, where
a number of our large banks and trust companies have their principal
offices, there has for many years been in existence an Agreement
between these corporate fiduciaries and the Bar Association of that