1904                                      Vetoes

May 28, 1971.

Honorable Thomas Hunter Lowe
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I have today vetoed House Bill 195.

This bill amends several sections of Article 2B of the Annotated
Code which relate to the hours for sale and consumption of alcoholic
beverages in Montgomery County. The bill further provides in Sec-
tion 2 that it shall not take effect until it is submitted to a referendum
of the voters of Montgomery County at the general election to be
held in November, 1972. However, Section 3 of the bill provides
that it shall take effect on June 1, 1972. Consequently, there is an
obvious conflict between the two effective date clauses of the bill.

The conflict as to when the bill will become effective is recon-
ciled by the Attorney General in favor of the referendum effective
date clause. However, the Attorney General further points out in his
opinion that there is an additional ambiguity as to when House Bill
195 will become effective after the referendum if the voters approve
of the bill. The Attorney General does not suggest any resolution of
this additional ambiguity. A copy of the Attorney General's opinion
is attached herewith and is to be considered a part of this message.

In view of the fact that the effective date clauses in House Bill
195 are in apparent conflict and that there is a further ambiguity
in the critical referendum clause, I have decided to veto House Bill
195. The General Assembly at its next session will be able to re-
examine the matter and will still be able to enact a new bill in time
for it to be submitted to referendum of the voters in November 1972
as originally proposed.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marvin Mandel,

Governor.

Letter from State Law Department on House Bill No. 195

May 18, 1971.

The Honorable Marvin Mandel
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Re: House Bill 195
Dear Governor Mandel:

The above-captioned bill has already been approved by this office
in a letter dated April 14, 1971, but a further question has been
raised as to the apparent conflict in the effective date sections (Sec-
tions 2 and 3 of the bill). By amendment the effective date con-
tained in the first reader copy of the bill (June 1, 1971) was stricken