1682                                      VETOES

I am advised by a letter from the office of the Attorney General
dated April 15, 1965, that Article III, Section 35 of the Constitution
of Maryland provides, in part: "No extra compensation shall be
granted or allowed by the General Assembly to any public Officer,
Agent, Servant or Contractor, after the service shall have been
rendered, or the contract entered into; ..... " In accordance with this
Article and two previously rendered opinions dated May 3, 1963,
the Attorney General's office believes that to provide, or increase,
a pension for former bailiffs who are no longer bailiffs would be
extra compensation granted to a public Servant after the services
have been rendered, and concludes by stating that the bill could not
constitutionally apply to bailiffs who have retired prior to January
1, 1964.

Attached is a copy of the Attorney General's opinion which is
to be included in my veto message. For reasons stated in this opinion,
I feel that I am compelled to veto this measure.

With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

(S) J. MILLARD TAWES,

Governor.

Letter from State Law Department on House Bill No. 527

April 15, 1965.

The Honorable J. Millard Tawes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Re: House Bill No. 527

Dear Governor Tawes:

At your request, we have examined House Bill 527 and we be-
lieve that this Bill would not be constitutional.

House Bill 527 seeks to provide that an increase in pensions
be made applicable to bailiffs who had retired prior to January 1,
1964, when the increase in pensions became effective, if any said
bailiff shall have served at least ten consecutive years prior to re-
tirement. In so doing, the Bill amends Chapter 849 of the Acts of
1963 which had provided that the increase in pensions would not be
applicable to any bailiff who retired or left his position prior to
January 1, 1964.

On May 3, 1963, this office approved House Bill 866 which be-
came Chapter 849 of the Acts of 1963. Part of our consideration in
finding the said Bill to be proper as to form and legal sufficiency was
the fact that the Bill did specifically prohibit its application to those
bailiffs who had previously retired.

On May 3, 1963, we wrote you that House Bill 648 would not be
constitutional partially on the ground that it would violate Article
III, Section 35 of the Constitution of Maryland, which provides, in
part: