1916                                      Vetoes

House Bill No. 772—Jury Instructions in Certain Condemnation Cases

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 2(24)
of Article 23A of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1966 Replacement
Volume, 1970 Supplement), title "Corporations—Municipal," subtitle
"In General," to provide jury instructions in certain cases involving
condemnation of water supply and sewage systems.

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 772.

This bill provides for a certain type of jury instruction in cases
involving the condemnation of water supply and sewage systems.

The Attorney General has advised me that House Bill 772 is
constitutionally defective. For the reasons given in the attached copy
of the Attorney General's opinion, which is to be considered a part
of this message, I believe that this measure must be vetoed.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marvin Mandel,

Governor.

Letter from State Law Department on House Bill No. 772

May 12, 1971.

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

Re: House Bill 772
Dear Governor Mandel:

At your request we have reviewed House Bill 772 which amends
Section 2(24) of Article 23A of the Annotated Code of Maryland
with regard to the content of jury instructions in certain cases in-
volving condemnation of water supply and sewerage systems.

By amendments to the section above cited, it is provided that
where a municipality has the legislative power to purchase or con-
demn privately owned water supply and sewerage systems within
that municipality, the inquisition jury shall be entitled to take into
consideration as part of the compensation to the owner (and pre-
sumably discount therefrom) any contribution or tax paid by private
lot owners toward the construction of said systems. While we are
unable to state that this aspect of the bill is unconstitutional, this
conclusion is reached by reason of the presumption of constitutionality
which we accord bills enacted by the General Assembly and not because
the issue is entirely free from doubt.