MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                        2815

Because of the manner in which the phrase "educational
programs" was inserted in the unnumbered line following
line 104, it is somewhat unclear whether the words
"demonstrations" and "exhibits" will now be treated as
entirely unmodified, modified only by the word
"educational," or still modified by the adjectives
"scientific" and "medical." We have brought this
question to the attention of the Anatomy Board and we are
frankly uncertain as to whether this possible ambiguity
will present any significant practical problems.

Of greater importance in considering House Bill 583
is the amendment which is made beginning at line 105.
That amendment was obviously designed to exempt from the
permissive provisions of the law relative to out—of—state
transportation the bodies of persons who are known to
have been members of a religious sect or denomination the
tenets of which would be violated by any of the
provisions of the subsection. The difficulty with the
amendment, as phrased is that it would exempt the bodies
of such persons from the entire subsection, including the
general prohibition against selling, buying, sending or
transporting bodies beyond the limits of the State. This
result was obviously not intended by the proponents of
the amendment. Since this change, however inadvertent
and unintentional it may be, is adequately described by
the general language employed in the title, there is a
real likelihood that it would be given effect in
accordance with its literal terms. There is, however,
authority for the proposition that a statute may be
construed in a fashion contrary to its literal wording if
a rigid, literal reading of the law would produce a
result that is "bizarre or preposterous." Hillyard v.
Board of Supervisors, 259 Md. 150 (1970).

While it might be argued that the Anatomy Board
could simply refuse permission for the out—of—state
transportation of bodies under the circumstances
described by the amendment, it is not at all clear that
such permission is required under these circumstances
since the amendment indicates that the provisions of the
subsection in their entirety do not apply.

Finally, we note that there is some ambiguity in
connection with the amendment to the Bill which begins at
line 111 and purports to authorize a particular medical
school "temporarily located in the District of Columbia"
to receive, send, and transport bodies under this section
as if the school were located in the State. The title of
the Bill indicates that the purpose of this amendment
bears only on the provisions of Section 160(c) dealing
with the transportation, etc., of bodies out of the
State. It is not at all clear that the amendment is
intended to or would have the effect of including this
particular medical school within the medical schools