3024

VETOES

Re: Senate Bill 64

Dear Governor Lee:

According to its title, the sole purpose of Senate Bill
64 is to add "the metric equivalent to the existing
measurement concerning liquor containers in Allegany
County." (Emphasis supplied). The two affected sections
are Code, Article 2B, §§ 6(b)(2) and 25(1), both of which
presently restrict the use of containers for alcoholic
beverages smaller than 4/5 quart.

As introduced, the bill merely would have added 750
milliliters, as the approximate metric equivalent of 4/5
quarts in both of these sections. However, the bill was
amended to also change "4/5 quart" to "23 ounces" and 750
milliliters to 680 milliliters in both sections.

Thus, as amended the bill does considerably more than
add a metric equivalent, viz. , it effectively allows the use
of containers which are smaller in size than previously
permitted, and we are advised that this reduction is not
academic, i.e., some producers are using such containers.

Article III, Sec. 29 of the Constitution requires,
inter alia, that every law enacted by the General Assembly
shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described
in its title.

"The objects designed to be attained by the
constitutional provisions are twofold: The first is to
prevent the combination in one act of several distinct
and incongrous subjects; and the second is, that the
Legislature and the people of the State may be fairly
advised of the real nature of pending legislation."

State v. Morris, 70 Md. 91, 9 5 (1889).

In Stiefel v. Md. Institution for Blind, 61 Md. 144, 148
(1884), the Court of Appeals examined Chapter 403 of the
Acts of 1880 under the requirements of this Section.
Finding that the measure enacted affirmative legislation
under a title which indicated only that an earlier statute
was being repealed, the Court held that the title was
misleading in contravention of Article III, Sec. 29, supra.
However, the Court also held that the act was
unconstitutional and void only insofar as it attempted to
enact affirmative substantive legislation, thus, its repeal
of the earlier statute was held to be valid.

Certainly the title of Senate Bill 64 in no way
indicates the substantive change it would work. Moreover,
unlike the act at bar in Stiefel, Senate Bill 6 4 merely
establishes new substantive law (i.e., a reduced minimum
requirement stated in both the existing system of