4034

VETOES

551(b) that would be changed by House Bill 618. At- least part of
the decision, however, implemented the principle that "a
specific, well-defined portion of a statute will control a
general, uncertain provision of the same statute." 296 Md. at
635. A similar principle prevails when two statutes cover
similar subjects:

"It is a fundamental principle that the law does not favor
repeals by implication. Waye v. State, 231 Md. 510, 516, 191
A.2d 428, 431 (1963); State v. Clifton, 177 Md. 572, 574, 10
A.2d 703, 704 (1940). A latter statute should not be held
to repeal by implication an earlier one 'unless there is
some express reference to the previous statute, or there is
a manifest inconsistency in the two statutes, or their
provisions are so repugnant that they cannot stand
together.' Kirkwood v. Provident Savings Bank, 205 Md. 48,
55, 106 A.2d 103, 107 (1954).

"Where two statutory provisions are neither irreconcilable
nor mutually repugnant, they should be construed in harmony
with their respective objects and tenor. Smith v. Gray
Concrete Pipe Co., Inc., 267 Md. 149, 155, 297 A.2d 721, 725
(1972); Kirkwood v. Provident Savings Bank, supra; Public
Service Commission v. Maryland Bay Co., 176 Md. 59, 73, 3
A.2d 736, 742 (1939); Loker v. State, 2 Md. App. 1, 9, 233
A.2d 342, 348 (1967), aff'd, 250 Md. 677, 245 A.2d 814
(1968), cert, denied, 393 U.S. 1082 (1969). This principle
is applicable even . though the statutes were passed at
different times and contain no reference to each other.
Board of Fire Commissioners of Balto. v. Potter, 268 Md.
285, 290-91, 300 A.2d 680, 683 (1973); May v. Warnick, 227
Md. 77, 83, 175 A.2d 413, 415-16 (1961).

"Similarly controlling is the premise that '[w]here there is
a specific enactment and a general enactment 'which, in its
most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in
the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and
the general enactment must be taken to affect only such
cases within its general language as are not within the
provisions of the particular enactment." Criminal Injuries
Comp. Board v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 495, 331 A.2d 55, 61
(1975); Henry v. State, 273 Md. 131, 134 n.l, 328 A.2d 293,
296 n.l (1974); Maguire v. State, 192 Md. 615, 623, 65 A.2d
299, 302 (1949). See also 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes § 416
(1974); 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 369 (1953)." Dept. of Nat.
Resources v. France, 277 Md. 432, 460-62 (1976)."

In light of those principles, § 551 (b) may not apply when other
statutes contain specific forfeiture provisions. If construed in
that fashion, House Bill 618 will have limited impact.

Forfeiture provisions can be found in a variety of statutes.