1972                                       Vetoes

other properties of exactly the same kind. It does not arbitrarily
say that this particular house of public worship shall be ex-
empt, but that one shall be taxed. On the contrary, all property
falling within any one of the classes mentioned in Sec. 4, is
exempt. There is therefore no arbitrary discrimination between
different properties of the same kind, but all are treated alike.'"
(emphasis the Court's)

Similarly in Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 672-73
(1970) which upheld property tax exemptions for religious prop-
erties used for religious worship, the Supreme Court noted: "It has
not singled out one particular church or religious group or even
churches as such."

These authorities thus seem to imply that a statute may be
unconstitutional which singles out the property of a particular church
for preferential tax treatment when similar properties owned by
other churches are not given similar treatment.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Francis B. Burch,

Attorney General.

House Bill No. 807—Charles County Board of Education

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Sections 35A
(f) and 37(a) of Article 77 of the Annotated Code of Maryland
(1971 Supplement), title "Public Education," subtitle "County
Boards of Education," to change the salary of the members of the
Charles County Board of Education after a certain time, provide for
their expenses, and delete superfluous material.

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 807.

This bill increases the annual expense allowance of the members
of the Charles County Board of Education, the increases to take
effect after the general election of 1974.

Since the adjournment of the General Assembly, Senator Paul
Bailey and Delegate Loretta Nimmerrichter, both of whom represent
Charles County, have requested that the bill be vetoed. It appears
that the bill removes the present legal authority for the members
of the Charles County Board of Education to receive an annual
expense allowance. Thus, under the bill, the members will not re-
ceive any expense allowance between July 1, 1972, and the general
election of 1974. Since this result was not intended, Senator Bailey
and Delegate Nimmerrichter believe that appropriate legislation to
accomplish the intent of House Bill 807 can be introduced at the
next session of the General Assembly, which is before the 1974
general election.