Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-04-12

dorsement shall be taken 10 ne part OF tne act,
and to be the date of its commencement when no
other commencement is therein provided. The
matter here under the provisions Of the constitu-
ton, or the practice of the government, as to the
time when law takes effect on being approved and
signed by the President, is, in my judgment, placed
upon no different footing. Neither in such case
any more than in the case where law takes effect
on being returned by the President with objections
and repassed by Congress, on not being signed
or returned within ten days after being presented
to him, are any divisions of day either implied or
contemplated. The President has right to retain
bill ten days for consideration and he approves
it any day within that time, he ndorses the day
of its approval upon the bill The hour OF the day,
according to uniform and uninterrupted usage, new
or appears-for the reason, undoubtedly, that 1t Is
considered the same in legal effect and consequent
ly immaterial whether the approval is upon one mo-
ment of the day anlthc". All VIC know, or can
judcially know, is what appears from the date Of
the approval, which is part and an essential part
of the act and any thing beyond that we have no le
gal means of knowing 1t is legally impossible,
therefore, to distinguish between different parts Of
the day, if it was admissible to do so ; and must
add, that cannot see either the fitness, propriety,
policy, or necessity, Of introducing into the law, if
practicable, the anomaly of making repeating act,
and the act repealed both in force and operation on
one and the same day-one act on one part OF the
day, and the other act the other part of the day.
So far as it concerns the commencement or ter
mination of public laws, q day is an indivsible por
ton Of time and repeat, it would be unfit, incon-
venent, and serve no valuable purpose, in my opin-
ion, to have it otherwise. OF what practical inl-
portance can it be, whether a law takes effect on
one or another part Of particular day If 1t be
meant that no law should 90 into operation before
the people have had the means Of knowing its pro
visions, the proposition is plain one and easily
understood but it is not SO easy to see or under
hf,Au n ho off 81 far l
respects the peoples knowing or having the
means Of knowing the law, whether it takes
effect the first last part of the day which it is
approved. Whether a law ought to be made to
take effect Immediately on its passage, is Il matter
very proper for the consideration Of the Leglsla-
ture. All laws, before they become such pass
through several stages, and are usually very slow
in their progress. While they remain Il, Tdnsitu
i'll Congress, which is commonly considerable
time, the various proceedings upon them spread
abroad over the country through the medium Of the
public journals; and as it is known and understood
that laws after passing through the different lcgis
lative stages take effect, in general and unless it is
otherwise specially provided the day they are APP
proved and signed by the President, there is very
little reason for saying there is any surprise upon
the public.
1t would seem, however, TO be more proper, as
being more agreeable to the spirit of our institu
tons, that criminal laws, especially such create
new offences or augment the punishment of old
Ones should be made to take effect on a fixed fu-
ture day, in order that they may be published and
promulgated before they 90 into operations; but if
made to take effect Immediately on their passage,
as it is generally supposed they may be constitu-
tonally, it would be OF very little consequence to
any purpose Of notice publicity, at what part or
hour ofthe day their operation commences. The sup
70 on that there may, By possibility be in point of
fact If not of law, retrospective or er post Idcto
operation in such case, proves If 1t proves any thing
at all, not that we should divide the day into parts
and restrict the law to the precise moment when
it was actually approved, which we have to be
impracticable, but, rather, that should exclude
the day of passing the law, which would not be i'm
practicable, altogether from its operation thus ma
king criminal laws an exception to the general rule
which has long obtained in the construction of stat
utes in this particular, and which is expressly con-
frmed and settled, as we shall hereafter see, by
modern adjudication of the best and highest au-
thority. But, then, if we TO reason from sup.
posed possible cases, ought not to overlook the
possible one of criminal law being repealed and
an act prohibited by itbeng committed on the same
day of its repeal; and we should not be unmindful
of what would be the effect, in such case, Of ex.
GLIDING the day, or, according to late suggestion,
of suspendng the operation of the repeal in iudic
ia construction until the last instant of the day.
1t is easy to suppose extreme cases; but remote
bare possibilities, however lngenlously put, merit
but little consideration in settling general princi
pie.
AS have already said, the question arising in
this case was first presented to me in case of
compulsory bankruptcy, which, whatever it may be
IN form, partakes in of the nature of
a criminal proceeding. | was called upon to say,
whether you could coerce man into bankruptcy |
against his will, dvest him of all his property and
rights of property, put stop TO his occupation, and
break up his business, under proceeding institu i
ted and commenced on the day the bankrupt law
was repealed The question comprehended not
only this, but also whether you could prosecute,
and punish crimnally, false swearing, any other
forbidden act done under such proceeding. |
thought the question very grave one, and felt its
weight and Importance. | thought what have
stated could not be done consistently with estab
lishcd legal principles; and did not feel author
lied to introduce new rules or new principles of
law, at liberty to indulge in any subtety or re-
fnement on old ones to enable me TO sustain pro |
ceeding involving such consequences.
All agree that the mnterial point in this case is,
when did the act repeating the bankrupt law take
effect? The whole question depends upon that
Now, think this point has long ago been decided
and settled in this country. 1t was decided and
settled, as it appears to me, by the Supreme Court
Of the United States in the of arnold Us. the
United States, 9 Cranch, l04 The question in that
case was, whether certain cargo Of goods, I'M |
ported into the United States, came under the ope.
ration of the act of 1912 imposing double duties.
The act provided, that an additional duty of one
hundred per cent. upon the permanent duties I'M
posed by existing laws, should be levied and col
leced upon all goods, wares, and merchandise,
which should, from and after the passing Of the ac'
be imported into the United States from any for
eign port or place. The act was approved and
signed by the President on the LIST day of July, |
and the goods were imported into the United States
on the same day. The question was, whether the
goods were subject to the double duties imposed
by the act; and this depended upon decision of
the question when the act took effect
1t was insisted by counsel, that the court ought
to give such a construction to the act, that no
citizen could by possibility, be subjected to its op
Grafton before it had actually passed; and that TO
prevent this, the court must either exclude the LIST
day of July altogether, or must admit fractions of
a day and suffer an inquiry into the very moment
Of time when the act received the signature of the
President; for, if vessel had arrived in the morn
ing the list day ofJuly, and the actwas not in fact
approved by the President until the afternoon of
that day il could not be pretended that the Foods