4062

VETOES

in House Bill 1421, none of the amendments are
inconsistent with any of the others. The net result will
be a new 16(k) (as per House Bill 1421) and a new 16(1)
(the former 16(k) with references to Charles, Garrett and
Howard Counties deleted. We should also point out that
in amending what is presently section 16(k), three
stylistic changes are made by the three bills. One is
made consistently in all three bills, one is made only in
House Bill 1621 and the third is made in House Bills 1421
and 1621 (but not in Senate Bill 1034), It is our view
that all three stylistic changes will be given effect.
None of the matters discussed above affects the validity
of any of the three bills.

A more serious problem, however, is posed by that
portion of Section 2 of House Bill 1621 which purports to
repeal and re—enact with amendments Section 25(j) of
Article 2B. Prior to the intended 1975 amendment, this
subsection provided for a special Class D beer license in
Charles and St. Mary's Counties. In addition to making
several changes of both substantive matters and of
clarifying language. House Bill 1621 deletes from the
existing law the reference to St. Mary's County (lines
120-121).

House Bill 1621 is entitled:

"AN ACT concerning

Charles County — Alcoholic Beverages

For the purpose of providing that a certain
alcoholic beverage license may be issued in
Charles County; providing that a certain other
class of license may be issued in Charles
County for certain conditions and for a
certain period of time; including Charles
County within certain provisions of the
alcoholic beverage laws; relating to appeals
from a decision of the Board of License
Commissioners; clarifying language; and
generally relating to alcoholic beverages in
Charles County."

Nothing contained in the title of the Act affords
any indication that St. Mary's County was to be affected
in any way. Article III, Section 29 of the Constitution
of Maryland states in part:

"... and every Law enacted by the General Assembly
shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be
described in its title."

The Court of Appeals has stated that this
constitutional provision requires that a bill's title