MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                                 1907

It may be thought that, in light of Maryland's new Required Security Law
(Chapter 73, Acts 1972, §§ 7-101 and 7-102 of Article 66-1/2 of the Annotated
Code of Maryland), there would no longer be a need for such added safeguards.
However, these provisions require only the "owner of a motor vehicle required to
be registered in this State" to evidence the necessary security before he may
receive a certificate of registration. No security is required to obtain a driver's
license. Consequently, a minor could well be operating a motor vehicle without any
insurance coverage, such as, for example, where the operation of the vehicle is
unauthorized or where the vehicle has been duly registered in some state other than
Maryland.

In view of the foregoing, and while I recognize the desirability of other of the
provisions of this bill and would support the same if independently re-introduced at
a subsequent session of the General Assembly, I feel that Senate Bill 954 must be
vetoed.

Sincerely,

/s/Marvin Mandel
Governor

Senate Bill No. 958 - Professional Associations

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 440(b) of Article 23 of
the Annotated Code of Maryland (1966 Replacement Volume and 1971
Supplement), title "Corporations," subtitle "Particular Classes of
Corporations," subheading "Professional Service Corporation Act," to provide
for a reduction in the number of minimum shareholders for the formation of a
Professional Association from five (5) to [[two (2)]] four (4) shareholders.

June 1, 1973.

Honorable William S. James

President of the Senate

State House

Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Mr. President:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Constitution, I have
today vetoed Senate Bill 958.

This bill reduces the number of shareholders required before a professional
corporation may adopt a corporate name not containing the name of a
shareholder.

The Attorney General has advised me that Senate Bill 958 has a defective title
and is, therefore, in violation of Article III, Section 29, of the Maryland
Constitution. For the reasons given on the attached copy of the Attorney General's
opinion, which is to be considered a part of this message, I believe this bill must be
vetoed.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marvin Mandel
Governor