3910                                                      VETOES

pending in the Court of Appeals requiring an interpretation of
the scope of certain of the State's gambling laws, including the
prohibition against possession and operation of slot machines set
forth in Article 27 § 264B of the Annotated Code.

The issues raised by Senate Bill 774 and discussed in this
veto message reflect my view of its legal, philosophical and
regulatory implications. As recent memory reminds us, the
history of slot machines in Maryland is not without its color or
its passion.

Slot machine gambling has frequently been before the General
Assembly, at least since the Great Depression, when it was first
legalized as a temporary revenue raising measure in 1937. During
the 1940's, the legislature authorized slot machines in four
Southern Maryland counties. Slot machines proliferated, raising
fears of the potential for corruption and involvement by
organized crime. In 1962, Governor J. Millard Tawes commissioned
the Slot Machine Study Committee to review the impact of
mechanized gambling in the State. Chaired by Richard W. Emory,
Esquire, the Committee issued its recommendations (the so called
"Emory Commission Report") on how to effect the elimination of
slot machine gambling in those counties. Those recommendations
formed the basis for legislation (House Bill 475) enacted during
the 1963 Session phasing out slot machine gambling and, with very
limited exceptions, absolutely prohibiting the possession of the
machines (Chapter 617 of the Acts of 1963). As a member of the
State Senate in 1963, I vividly recall the floor debates on this
issue. Many legislators, including myself, believed that
elimination of slot machine gambling in Southern Maryland would,
in the long term, result in that region developing a sounder
economic foundation based on the virtues of its historic and
natural resources as well as its proximity to the Nation's
Capital. Without question, Southern Maryland is now fulfilling
its economic development potential and its quality of life is
envied elsewhere.

The policy considerations underlying Senate Bill 774 cannot
be separated from its legal framework and associated legislative
history. Senate Bill 774 amends Article 27, § 264B of the Code
to create a new exception to the nearly absolute prohibition
against possession of slot machines. This is a distinct
provision from Article 27 § 255(b) (still in effect and
unamended) which is the basis for recent contentions that Senate
Bill 774 "clarifies" or "tightens" ambiguities in existing law.

The origin of Article 27, § 255 of the Code, governing
gambling at carnivals, bazaars and raffles of volunteer fire
companies and other nonprofit organizations was a local Caroline
County bill enacted as Chapter 679 of the Acts of 1949. The
provisions of that law and subsequent amendments adding other
counties are limited to gambling under those types of
circumstances. Section 255(b), applicable in 18 counties,
states: