2222                                      VETOES

There are two constitutional provisions which require our con-
clusion that the bill is unconstitutional.

Article III, Section 15, Constitution of Maryland, provides, in
part:

"The General Assembly may continue its session so long as in
its judgment the public interest may require, for a period not
longer than ninety days in odd years and thirty days in even
years; and on and after January 1, 1949, each member thereof
shall receive a compensation of Eighteen Hundred Dollars ($1,-
800.00) per annum, payable quarterly, with a deduction of Fifteen
Dollars ($15.00) per diem for each day of unexcused absence
from any session; ..."

Article III, Section 35, Constitution of Maryland, provides, in
part:

"No extra compensation shall be granted or allowed by the Gen-
eral Assembly to any public Officer, Agent, Servant or Contractor,
after the service shall have been rendered, or the contract entered
into; nor shall the salary or compensation of any public officer be
increased or diminished during his term of office......."

We believe that the attempt by the bill to provide a pension for
former members of the General Assembly who are no longer mem-
bers of the General Assembly would be extra compensation granted
to a public officer after the services have been rendered. Pensions of
the type provided in this bill have generally been held to be compen-
sation to the public officers receiving them. The case of Sena v.
Trujillo, 46 N.M. 361, 129 P. 2d 329, 142 A.L.R., and the Note, 142
A.L.R. 938, clearly indicate that, by the great weight of authority,
where a constitutional provision prohibits payment of extra com-
pensation to public officers after services have been rendered, an
attempt to provide a pension to one who has left the service of the
state prior to the enactment of the statute would be unconstitutional.

It is also our belief that since the Constitution provides that each
member of the General Assembly shall receive a compensation of
$1,800 per annum, the Legislature could not increase the compen-
sation. State v. Appling, 348 P. 2d 759 (Ore., 1960), holds that a
provision in the constitution that "members of the Legislative As-
sembly shall receive for their services a salary of $600.00 per annum
payable as provided by law" prevents the enactment of a statute
increasing the salary.

Another persuasive consideration that the attempt to increase the
compensation of members of the General Assembly by legislative
action would be unconstitutional is the fact that each previous at-
tempt to increase the annual compensation of members of the Gen-
eral Assembly has been by constitutional amendment. Chapter 112
of the Acts of 1962 was an attempt to increase the compensation of
members of the General Assembly to $3,000 per annum. This pro-
posed amendment was not approved by the voters.

For the reasons set forth above we believe that House Bill 648
could not constitutionally apply to members of the General Assembly