MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                       3113

its certificates of indebtedness as evidence
thereof, to an amount not exceeding One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00), the proceeds derived from
the sale of the certificates of indebtedness to be
used to make or contract to make financial loans to
the owners of buildings or structures located within
the boundaries of Baltimore City, which are used or
occupied for commercial purposes, for or in
connection with rehabilitating, renovating,
redeveloping or improving said [[building]]
buildings or structures; to guarantee or insure
financial loans made by third parties to the owners
of buildings or structures located within the
boundary lines of Baltimore City, which are used or
occupied for commercial purposes, for or in
connection with rehabilitating, renovating,
redeveloping or improving said buildings or
structures, and for doing any and all things
necessary, proper or expedient in connection with or
pertaining to any or all of the matters or things
hereinbefore mentioned; providing when the power and
authority vested in the Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore by this Act shall become operative;
authorizing said municipality to submit an ordinance
or ordinances for said purpose to the legal voters
of Baltimore City, and providing generally for the
issuance and sale of said certificates of
indebtedness.

May 31, 1974.

Honorable John Hanson Briscoe
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the
Maryland Constitution, I have today vetoed House Bill
560.

This bill authorizes Baltimore City to borrow
$1,000,000 for the rehabilitation of commercial
buildings, subject to the adoption of an amendment to
Article XI—G of the Constitution of Maryland.

Senate Bill 286, which was enacted by the General
Assembly and signed by me on April 9, 174, accomplishes
the same purpose as House Bill 560. In addition, the
Attorney General has advised me that House Bill 560 is
unconstitutional because of an apparent error in
collating the bill which has created a variance between
the title and the body of the act. A copy of the Opinion
of the Attorney General is attached to and should be made
a part of this veto message.