1670                                      VETOES

May 4, 1965.

Honorable Marvin Mandel
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I am returning herewith House Bill 44, 1965 Session, which
has been vetoed by me today.

In view of the Attorney General's comprehensive and technical
analysis of the Bill, I am setting forth in toto his opinion letter of
April 6, 1965:

"Dear Governor Tawes:

"At your request, we have reviewed the above bill (re House
Bill 44) as to form and legal sufficiency.

"As originally introduced, this bill sought to amend Article 49,
Sec. 4, of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1964 Replacement
Volume), which was enacted in 1845 and has remained in its original
form to the present time. The original title of House Bill 44 stated
that it was intended 'to provide that any person guilty of usury shall
forfeit the real sum or value of the goods and chattels actually lent
or advanced and all interest charges thereon.' This represented a
radical departure from long-standing practice, which provides for a
forfeiture only to the extent of excessive interest or charges. Plitt v.
Kaufman, 188 Md. 606, 610-611; Kinsey v. Drury, 146 Md. 227, 233;
Brown v. Real Estate Inves. Co., 134 Md. 493, and cases cited.

"During the course of the passage of the bill through the Gen-
eral Assembly, the title was amended to interpolate the words 'all
excess above' after the word 'forfeit' so that as finally passed the
title reads as follows:

'..... to provide that any person guilty of usury shall forfeit
ALL THE EXCESS ABOVE the real sum or value of the goods
and chattels actually lent or advanced and all interest charges
thereon.'

"Even a casual reading of this language indicates that the word
'thereon,' by all rules of grammatical construction, relates back to
the phrase 'all the excess above the real sum or value' with the net
result (so far as the title is concerned) that no change is made in the
statute as heretofore construed.

"However, the body of the bill as amended is more cryptic. It
provides:

'Any person guilty of usury shall forfeit all the excess above
the real sum or value of the goods and chattels actually lent or
advanced and shall forfeit any and all interest on such sum or
value, which forfeiture shall enure to the benefit of any de-
fendant who shall plead usury and prove the same.'