MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                       3071

awards are to be made on the basis of need, as determined
by the financial aid office of the University.

Having consistently supported the State scholarship
programs for students attending our colleges and
universities, I certainly have no objection to the
purposes of the bill. I believe, however, that the bill,
as worded is exceedingly vague, and that it most likely
contravenes Article HI, Section 52 of the State
Constitution.

The bill does not define who is an "eligible
minority student", and contains no guidelines or
standards for determining need. This latter deficiency
is in contrast to the requirements of our other State
Scholarship programs that need, where it is a factor, be
determined by rules and regulations of the State
Scholarship Board which are, of course, subject to the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Of greater concern is the manner in which the bill
purports to mandate annual appropriations to fund the
programs. It states that, beginning July 1, 1975, "an
appropriation" for the University in the State budget in
an amount not to exceed $150,000 for the minority student
program and in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for the
other program "shall be appropriated and in each fiscal
year such an amount as is necessary to maintain and
continue the program shall be appropriated."

It is not. clear whether the dollar limitations
expressed are applicable only to fiscal year 1976, or to
all subsequent years as well, but the bill is certainly
susceptible to the interpretation that the limitation
applies to only the first year. If this is so, the bill
purports to require an appropriation in all succeeding
years in whatever amount is necessary to maintain the two
programs.

Because of the language requiring that these
amounts, which the bill inself terms an appropriation,
"shall be appropriated", it would appear that, in light
of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Baltimore v.
O'Conor, 147 Md. 639 (1925) and the definition of
"appropriation" in Dorsey v. Petrott, 178 Md. 230,245
(1940), the bill amounts to an appropriation bill.
Article III, Section 52 of the Constitution prohibits the
General Assembly from enacting such a bill unless it also
provides a tax sufficient to fund the appropriation,
which Senate Bill 424 does not do.

Instead of providing such a tax, the bill requires
some unspecified amount to be included in the annual
State budget to fund the appropriation. Since Article
III, Section 52 precludes the General Assembly from