|
3114 VETOES
For these reasons I have decided to veto House Bill
560.
Sincerely,
/s/ Marvin Mandel
Governor
Letter from State Law Department on House Bill 560
May 8, 1974.
Honorable Marvin Mandel
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
Re: House Bill 560
Re: House Bill 561
Dear Governor Mandel:
House Bill 560 and House Bill 561 are each
unconstitutional because of titling problems. The title
of the former states that it concerns "Baltimore City —
Commercial Rehabilitation Bond Issue" and that the
proceeds of the bond issue are to be used to guarantee,
insure or make loans to owners of buildings "used or
occupied for commercial purposes." However, Section 3(b)
of the Bill states that the proceeds shall be used to
make loans to owners of buildings "used or occupied for
residential purposes." The title of the latter bill
states that it concerns "Baltimore City — Home
Rehabilitation Bond Issue" and that the proceeds of the
bond issue are to be used to guarantee, insure or make
loans to owners of buildings "used or occupies for
residential purposes." However, Section 3(b) of the Bill
states that the proceeds shall be used to guarantee,
insure or make loans to owners of buildings "used or
occupied for commercial purposes."
The conflict between the title and the substantive
provisions of each bill result from the fact that the
first page of House Bill 560 was attached to the last two
pages of House Bill 561 and the first page of House Bill
561 was attached to the last two pages of House Bill 560.
We are advised that the bills passed the legislature in
this form. Because in the conflicts between the titles
and the substantive provisions of the bills, I am of the
opinion that the Bills are each unconstitutional. See
Article III, Section 29, Maryland Constitution.
In conclusion, it should be noted that there may be
some uncertainty as to the form of the bills as they
passed the legislature. Whatever the event, House Bill
560 is identical to Senate Bill 286 which has been signed
|
