2214                                      VETOES

I am attaching, hereto, a copy of the Attorney General's letter
referring to the above, with the intent that same be considered a por-
tion of this veto message.

With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

(S) J. MILLARD TAWES,

Governor.
JMT/ths/Encl.

Letter from State Law Department on House Bill No. 505

April 4, 1963.

Honorable J. Millard Tawes
Governor of the State of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Re: House Bill No. 505
Dear Governor Tawes:

House Bill No. 505, submitted by your Excellency to this office
for a review of its legal sufficiency, is a Bill "providing for an
annual permit fee for trailers in Carroll County, with certain ex-
ceptions therefrom, and relating generally to trailers in Carroll
County."

For the reasons stated in a letter of even date herewith, respect-
ing the legal sufficiency of House Bill No. 1075, a copy of which
letter is attached hereto, it is the opinion of this office that House
Bill No. 505 fails to meet the requirements of Article 15 of the
Declaration of Rights and, therefore, is unconstitutional.

House Bill No. 505 is essentially a revenue-producing measure and
is not sustainable as enacted under the legislature's broad police
powers. Subsection (C) of Section 45E makes this clear, by provid-
ing that the permit fee required "shall be in addition to any zoning,
building, health or other permit that is or may be required." Thus,
as a revenue measure imposing a property tax, the Bill must be
measured by the constitutional requirements of uniformity and
equality established by Article 15 of the Declaration of Rights.
Anne Arundel County v. English, 182 Md. 514 (1943).

While Section 45E (D) provides that the yearly permit fee shall
not be less than $35.00 nor more than $100.00, there is no pro-
vision made for the assessment of those trailers for which a permit
is required. Thus, although the fee may vary according to the size
of a trailer, it would bear no direct relationship to value. This con-
clusion is bolstered, to some extent, by the language of Section
45E (D) which states that the permit fee "shall be in lieu of any
assessment made heretofore on trailers ....." This, the Court of
Appeals stated in the English case, does not meet the constitutional
requirements of uniformity.

In brief, House Bill No. 505, in terms of constitutional considera-
tions, is identical in all material respects to House Bill No. 1075.