|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3934
|
|
|
|
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For this reason, I have decided to veto House Bill
1852.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sincerely,
Marvin Mandel
Governor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letter from State Law Department on House Bill 1852
May 20, 1977
Honorable Marvin Mandel
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
Re: House Bill 1852
Dear Governor Mandel:
House Bill 1852 carries a title which indicates only
that its purposes are to increase the salary of the
State's Attorney of Carroll County and to provide for
certain applicability of the Act, These purposes are
accomplished by the Act. However, the Act also removes
from present Code, Article 10, §40(g)(1), a provision
which guarantees the State's Attorney, the Deputy State's
Attorney and the Assistant State's Attorneys the right to
practice law privately (see lines 68-89). Undoubtedly,
the significant increase in the State's Attorney's salary
(which, presumably, would constitute precedent for
corresponding increases in the salaries of the Deputy
State's Attorney and the Assistant State's Attorneys) is
a legislative recognition of the full-time demands of
these positions and the consequent need both to increase
the salary and reduce outside practice accordingly.
Unfortunately, the title of the bill in no way suggests
that it is repealing the authorization to practice law
privately. In so doing, the bill, in our opinion,
fatally runs afoul of the provisions of Article III, §29,
of the Constitution, which require that the title of
every law enacted by the General Assembly adequately
describe the contents of the bill. Furthermore, if, as
we strongly suspect, the repeal of the private practice
guarantee is the quid pro quo for the salary increase,
the defective portion of the bill is not severable under
Code, Article 1, §23.
Fortunately, since Article III, §35, of the
Constitution prevents the incumbent State's Attorney from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
