1984 VETOES.

0

Decided opposition has been expressed to the measure on
various grounds. One particular objection has been voiced by
a number of lawyers of the State who contend that if the Bill
becomes law, title examination by attorneys could not be con-
ducted and paid for from the proceeds of loans.

It is urgently contended that title companies, realtors, and
attorneys would thereby be deprived of compensation for proper
and legitimate services. The interests of the general public,
of course, are to be our primary concern but, inasmuch as the
general public has been so well protected under the present
system of title examinations, it might well be that they would
be the chief sufferers if a radical change were made.

Other objections were advanced including the alleged depri-
vation to the borrower of certain rights which they have en-
joyed in the past. It is urged that the Bill is discriminatory
in that it favors the large commercial company to the detriment
of the smaller concern.

One ch\ef objection has been that the Bill would exclude from
this field any individual lender, or any company incorporated
under the laws of another State. Such a condition, if it were
to exist, would drive out of business some who are presently
engaged in a lawful business and whose practices have never
been open to valid criticism.

Possibly the sponsors of the legislation did not intend to
impose these conditions. In any event I feel that the public
interest will be served by further study and consideration and,
hence, feel it necessary to veto it.

DUPLICATE OK CONFLICTING BILLS.

Chapter 394 (House Bill 252). This Bill is identical with
House Bill No. 689, Chapter 627, which has already been
signed except that the latter Bill provides for a ^Referendum
which affords the voters of Washington County an opportunity
to vote upon the dispensing of alcoholic beverages on Sunday.

Members of the Washington County delegation expressed a
preference to have House Bill No. 689 signed and therefore
to have this particular Bill vetoed which I am doing.

Chapter 1001 (House Bill 747). The Montgomery County
Delegation introduced this Bill (Alcoholic Beverages) and
recently, through its Chairman, has asked that it be vetoed.

A duplicate Bill—(House Bill No. 815, Ch. 689)—was passed
and approved and, therefore, I am vetoing this second enact-
ment.

Chapter 539 (House Bill 508). The sponsor of this measure
requests it veto.