22                           JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS                   [June 22

The President put the question: shall the bill pass not withstanding
the objections of the Executive ?

The President announced the veto was not sustained by roll call as
follows:

Affirmative

Senators—

Mr. President, Bertier, Bertorelli, Brubaker, Byron, Clark, Connolly, Conroy, Curran,
Dean, Dorf, Emanuel, Hart, Hodges, Hoyer, Hughes (H.), Lapides, Lee, Malkus, Man-
ning, Mitchell, McCourt, McGuirk, Nock, Pine, Schweinhaut, Smelser, Snyder, Staszak,
Staten, Stone, Welcome, Wineland.                                                               Total—33

Negative

Senators—

Anderson, Bailey, Bishop, Finney, Friedler,  Gore, Hall, Hughes (G.), Steffey,
Steinberg.                                                                                                    Total—10

May 4, 1967.

Honorable William S. James
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. President:

In accordance with Section 17 of Article II of the Maryland
Constitution, I have vetoed today Senate Bill 291 and am returning
it to you.

This bill would create separate Historical Trusts in the various
political subdivisions with the exception of Prince George's County.
I am informed by the Attorney General that the bill is lacking in
form and legal sufficiency. For the reasons given in the attached copy
of his opinion, which is to be considered a part of this message, I am
compelled to veto the measure.

Sincerely yours,

(s) Spiro T. Agnew,

Governor.

Letter from State Law Department on S. B. 291

April 17, 1967.

The Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Governor Agnew:

At your request, I have examined Senate Bill 291, which creates
separate Historical Trusts in the various political subdivisions. We
are disapproving this bill on the basis of its lack of form and legal
sufficiency for the following reason:

The body of the bill excepts Prince George's County and this
later Amendment to the bill is not carried in the title, making said
title, in our opinion, misleading. This inadequacy might not neces-
sarily be a matter of major significance, except for the fact that under