4030

VETOES

in the construction of Maryland statutes is to ascertain the
intention of the General Assembly. Pressman v. Barnes, 209 Md.
'544 (1956).

As a general rule, in seeking to give effect to the
intention of the Legislature, a statute is not to be interpreted
merely according to its literal terms, but the spirit of the
legislation must be considered. Clearfoss v. State, 42 Md. 403
(1875); Smith v. Higinbothom, 187 Md. 115 (1946). In other
words, the spirit or intention of the law must prevail over the
letter of the statute. Smith v. Higinbothom, supra. This rule
of construction is especially applicable where adherence to the
letter of the law could result in absurd consequences. Id.

A literal reading of the Conference Committee Report would
result in the following language: "With each plot, the
Commission shall provide, without charge, one grave liner not to
exceed $55 in cost." This is so because the Report indicates
that the second Committee amendment, to which the Yeager
amendment was attached, was rejected. Therefore, it may be
argued that the Yeager amendment must also be considered to have
been rejected.

However, I have discussed this matter with the person who
prepared the Conference Committee Report and the Co-Chairman of
the Conference Committee. Everyone agrees that the intention of
the conferees was to adopt both the Yeager and the Conference
Committee amendments. The spirit of the Conference Committee
Report certainly supports this conclusion. The conferees
obviously wanted to keep the idea suggested by the Senate Finance
Committee -- that is, place some financial cap on the cost of the
liners provided by the Veterans Commission. They only disagreed
as to the specific dollar amount. In addition, they clearly
wanted to retain Senator Yeager's suggestion to allow for
inflation as well. Thus, in my view, there is ample evidence to
support the conclusion that the intention was to have the bill
read as follows: "With each plot, the Commission shall provide,
without charge, 1 grave liner not to exceed $55 in cost, plus an
annual increase of no more than 5 percent to allow for
inflation."

I have consulted with Avery Aisenstark, Chief Counsel for
Opinions and Advice, and Robert A. Zarnoch, Chief of Legislation,
and they concur in the above advice.

Sincerely,

Linda H. Lamone

Assistant Attorney General

* In 1981, House Bill 1522 was not presented because the Senate
Journal gave no indication that the bill passed on second
reading and because differing versions of the bill passed both
Houses. That is not the case here.