1962                                       Vetoes

case, supra, would be overcome by repealing the new section in its
entirety and re-enacting it with the necessary amendments.

House Bill 363 does not take effect, if at all, until January 1,
1973; therefore, the sale of certificates would not be substantially
delayed since the repeal and re-enactment with necessary amend-
ments could be accomplished during the 1973 Session of the General
Assembly, perhaps as an emergency measure. The Legislative Coun-
cil, with any assistance we might offer, could, of course, prepare
such legislation this summer.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Francis B. Burch,

Attorney General.

House Bill No. 419—Licensing of Travel Promoters

AN ACT to add new Sections 282 to 289, inclusive, to Article 56
of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1971 Supplement) (1972 RE-
PLACEMENT VOLUME), title "Licenses," to follow immediately
after Section 281 thereof, and to be under the new subtitle "Travel
Promoters," providing for the licensing of travel promoters in this
State, defining certain terms, providing for a trust arrangement
for sums received or a bonding arrangement, providing regulations
for advertising and for information to passengers, providing for re-
funds to passengers, and providing penalties for violations of the
subtitle.

May 31, 1972.

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 419.

This bill provides for the licensing and regulation of travel pro-
moters in Maryland who arrange air or sea transportation for mem-
bers of the public.

House Bill 419 would require supplemental air carriers and their
agents, and private clubs and organizations, teacher organizations
and fraternal lodges to obtain a license at a cost of $100 and to
place in trust 90 per cent of all funds received in payment for air
or sea transportation. The bill does not cover scheduled air carriers
and their agents.

In my opinion, this legislation discriminates against one class
of air carriers and their agents, namely the supplemental carriers.
Supplemental carriers compete with scheduled carriers in the sale
of charter services. In addition, the charter services of the supple-
mentals compete with certain types of discount fares offered by the
scheduled carriers on their scheduled flights. Both classes of carriers
are heavily dependent upon travel agents for the marketing of their
services. Thus, under these circumstances, it is discriminatory to
impose licensing and bonding requirements on the agents of the sup-
plementals and to exempt the agents of the scheduled carriers from