1956                                       Vetoes

the weight allowed refuse trucks. The bill also exempts such trucks
from axle weight limitations.

The Attorney General has advised me that House Bill 263 has
a defective title, and therefore it is in violation of Article III, Section
29, of the Maryland Constitution. For the reasons given in the at-
tached copy of the Attorney General's Opinion, which is to be con-
sidered a part of this message, I believe that this bill must be vetoed.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marvin Mandel,

Governor.

Letter from the Attorney General on House Bill 263

May 22, 1972.

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

Re: House Bill 263
Dear Governor Mandel:

At your request we have reviewed House Bill 263, which amends
Section 14-111(c) of Article 66½ of the Annotated Code of Mary-
land (1970 Replacement Volume), to provide, according to the title
of the Bill, for a five per cent (5%) tolerance on weight allowed
refuse trucks under the "Size, Weight and Load" subtitle of the
Article.

While the title of the Bill indicates that its purpose is to allow
refuse trucks a five per cent (5%) margin on applicable weight
limits, the body of the Bill exceeds that purpose; Section 1 of the
Bill not only amends Section 14-111(c) of Article 66½ to .add the
five per cent tolerance, but also by proviso adds an exemption from
all rear axle weight limitations for garbage and refuse trucks. The
title attempts to describe the amendments effectuated by the Bill
but fails to mention a complete exemption from certain provisions
of law, which exemption would be a significant amendment of Sec-
tion 14-111(c).

Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution requires
that the subject of every law enacted by the General Assembly shall
be described in its title. The purpose of this requirement is so
that the General Assembly and the people of the State may be fairly
advised of the real nature of pending legislation. Clark's Brooklyn
Park, Inc. v. Hranicka, et al, 246 Md. 178 (1967); Kelly v. State,
139 Md. 204 (1921). It has also been held that one of the essentials
of a good title is that it shall not be misleading, Baltimore v. Deegan,
163 Md. 234 (1932); and that the title must not apparently limit the
enactment to a much narrower scope than the body of the Act
embraces, State v. King, 124 Md. 471 (1914).

We think that, as to House Bill 263, we must point out that
the description of the Bill as contained in its title might not be