Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-07-31

| Statute, which prescribes general rules LOT
the construction of all Acts of Parliament.
| These rules were intended to abridge the
language Of statutes, and were regarded as
great reforms; but the reformers, as reior-
mers sometimes do, rather overshot the
mark; another proof Of the truth Of what
was said by distinguished statesman, "all
innovation is not reform"
One Of the English rules provides, that
word importing the masculine gender
shall be construed to import the feminine
gender also Upona motion for repeal, IN
the House of Commons, it was stated,
that one Of the effects of this rule was to
extend the right Of suffrage to females,
possessing the qualifications, prescribed for
men, to entitle them to vote in elections
the ightof suffragein England, beingtxed
by Act of Parliament.
We believe that our New Code has fol-
lowed and adopted many of the English
rules of construction, and it has occurred
to us, that these rules may give rise to
some curious results. in their application to
various provisions Of the Code.
Its enacted page 100, sec. II, OF the
Code) that: ain the construction of all
statutes, the following rules shall be OBJ
served, unless such construction would be
inconsistent with the manifest intent Of the
Legislature" The 18th rule (page 1907
provides that "a word importing the mas
culinc gender only, may extend and be APP
piled to females as well as males" In the
chapter on the Militia, (page 119 sec. },
it is enacted that, Every able-bodied male
citizen between the ages Of eighteen and
forty-fve, resident within this State, and
not exempt from serving in the Militia,
by the laws of the United States, or of this
State, shall be SUBJECT, Military duty
There is nothing in this language or the
context or any part of the Code, manifest
" inconsistent with the idea, that females
are required to do Military duty. There
have been instances in our own country,
as well as in other countries, of very gal
liant and efficient services rendered in battle
by females, and they are by no means in
capable of Military service. Why then is
not the above clause to be construed so as
to require ablc-bodied female citizens, as
we'll as male citizens, to render service in
the Miitial We see no valid legal reason
to exclude the said clause from the opera
ton of the rule, and we can readily mag
inc that a regiment Of Bloomerites, Gar
med and equipped as the law directs, -
would present quite formidable and i'm
posing appearance.
A question may also arise as to whether,
in certain cases, females are not entitled to
exercise the right of suffrage; such as the
election of overseers of the poor and of the
officers ofany incorporated town or city, in
which the suffrage qualification is re-
gulated by the Code and not by the Con
stitution. The Code in providing for the
election of oversecrs of the poor in dis
trict page 260, sec. \ enacts that: Eat
an election for any such district, every
person may vote who is q freebooter or
house-keeper therein, and any person shall
be eligible who resides and has freehold
therein unless he is, or within six months
proceeding the election has been, a collector
ofcounty levies." And in regard to the
election Of town officers it is provided
(page 2S3, sec. y, that any white male citi-
zen who is resident of town and ha,
been assessed with and paid part of the
levy of the town shall be entitled to
vote in all town elections. The foregoing
rule OF construction,applied,t to these clauses,
would givethc right Of suffrage to females
as well as to males. 1t may be objected
that the rule is not imperative, the statute
using the word ''may" which is one Of dis
erection. But who is to exercise the discrc-
ton! We concei-e that the first clause
given, in which tits provided that the rules
following shall be observed renders their
application imperative when not nconsis-
tent with the manifest intent of the Legis-
lature."
Judge Tucker his commentaries, (pagc
10, book y, says: alt is said the word
''may," IN statute, means must and shall
IN those cases only where the pablic are in
tcrcsted and the public or third persons
have de. juye, claim to have the granted
Powerexercised.' Now as these provisions
ofthe Code prescribe public duties and
grant franchises, we conceive that there is
no discretion any where, land if any, in
whomD but the word "may" in the rule
aforesaid would mean in these cases, mast
and shall, even if such construction were
not rendered imperative by the preceding
clause.
The only question thea is, does the APP
phcation Of the foregoing clauses to fe-
males as well as males conflict "with the
manifest intent ofthe Legislaturcl" In the
| construction of statutes we believe the rule
Is universal and well established, that the
intention of the Legislature must be gather
ed from the words used and the context;
and there being nothing in the words used
inthe clauses we have given, nor in the con-
text to exempt them from the operation OF
that part of the 18th rule of construction
quoted above, wedo not see any good reason
why it should not be applied to them. 1t is
not enough that the result of each applica-
ton would be at variance with our previous
customs and our notions of propriety and
delicacy. There are an abundance OF
persons in various parts of the country 'wo-
| MANS rirybts a1voc,tnsr xx-ba ,op+orJ ,L,,