Weekly Council Bluffs bugle. (Council Bluffs, Iowa) 1857-1860, 1860-02-15

tN~M &MNe NN4*S NA@sA# ~ #N#
esps the hypetkssis 81 son6sss Us /
ssFposs ahss Cengress Imssmxaea % ~
sha werd fssaeaaas Il ahs penxisiam {
ahe ass of 1853, Dees il f0lIaw, kha
beeanse CengFees previdsd In shs acs d
1858, that any exesss or feeg geeeiTe
4 zadar the sss 81 las2, shsal8 BE- pAil
inbo tha EFeamnzys we muss eonclndA thA
Il Congress inseRded that any exnaaa q
fees reesivsd un-ier the act Sassed TIRE
Il years later, ahcasd, il The absaase 0f -,
law whaaessE T@qairing It, Dc paid pYa
e the public Fvvaiaae Why Il Goa
gTesa iasanasd that any axceas fees ora
/ > esrGain sam Kseeived under ske set d
1856, aheRd hs raid into tha Treasury
| hes 10 prcvfascn bsea anywhsss zmm8a
| 10 s&sss thai Iebjeef 2 The pFoviden q
che approximation Iaw ef 1858, il BIZ IL
/ exprase seTms, confined to she asA 81
l3t2. That provision has NO dirscs and
sxpsess application 70 the saksegusal
Law Of 1856. O,lngrssa mighs hsva 81.
acted general provision, thA&, in al
caass where shs fAnd officers shcuid rs.
ssiys fsas 70 szeaea specific san -
excess shonld be y&id iako the Treasury.
Why did tAey n0s mako sush . general
psevisipas which would bare extended "a
tees received nnder anY lag then II 91re4
or thereafter snassea9 Way wma Eke
provision now relied upon, confined By
its express toEms Of the act Of 1852, Il
1t wss Dot iatendsd to be general and %
apply 20 fees rsceived under any other
lawS The truth II, that the emissien 60
provide anywhere, thas the excess affsas
Fsosiyed under tia act Of 1855, should
be paid into the Treasury, argues in MY
mind, tbs parpoSe Of Congress, that the
land ofAssEs should rot be required 20
pay over saeh excess and this sFgumeat
receives convincing force, when Ne soa-
sidsr that the subject had been under the
confederation ct Congress, when the
appropriations bill Of 1853 was passed,
and was nety shsreEore, ia 1855, passed
over By msga neglect or sdEsrssncy.-
The counsel Of the Government, pressed
By the force Of this omission, seek to ap-
ply the provision Of the set Of 1885, quo-
ted above TO the subseqaenG aet of 1855.
But bow ia this done? Conesding that
ths act Of 1858, Is By its express terms,
epnhned Ia It's operation, 20 the ID sec.
Of the set Of 1852, COUNSEL insist that
the act Of 1884, Ia to be taken IS leg
islative Instruction of the act Of 1855,
and that, consequently, the oct of 1855
Is to Be received With that construction.
Ali this, moreover, il founded upon an
other hypothesis, which, shink hare
shown 10 be uafounded namely, that
Congress committed = mistake OF fact,
in using she word "thiFd'' instead Of the
word ''secoBd," in the appropriation
bill.
Nov, under cur system, it is NOS the
province Of the legislature TO interpret
Statutes. Thus duty is devolEed upon
the Courts, and IL is not within the pow
eF of the legislature to invade the PROV
inca OF the Judiciary. The Legislature
may, indeed, By deelsrAtory aes, give
. construction to 90 existing statute; bat
whas is the effect of such q declarGtoTy
act In the frsa place, if contrary 10
the construction Of the sss By The Courts,
it can have NO retrospective opeFstion
whatever. But sash a deolaTatory act,
as TO tie future operates as q new dscia-
ration Of The Legislature, will, and be-
comes from the Simk Of its taking effect,
q new lsw. In othsT words, the legisla-
tare may pass laws either By direct
expEsssioa OF its will, or by declaring
what shall, Ia futaxe, be the meaning Of
an existing statute. Is may be oonoed-
ed khan, for sha sake Of arguments shss
Congress did, ii ths provision Of The ap-
preparation bill Of 1858, declare, not in
express tsRms, bat By necessary inpli-
cation what the meaning Of the ID sec.
of the act Of 1852 should in future be,
end that from the memsnt Of the taking
eject Of The act Of 1858, the act Of 1852
became . new Les with An established
legislative construction. Even with this
concession Rm as loss TO see hsR the
act Of 1855 10 affected by the provision
Of the act Of 1853. But Congress did
not, by the act OF 1858, declare that shs
act OF 1852 should be construed to mean
so and so, or shas whenever 10 future,
any law should be passed containing tie
words enh9assa In the act Of 1859, those
wSrds should inpeEs an obligation upous
the land ofhcsFs TO pay into ths Treas
ury the excess Of fees over . certain
sum. On tho eonsraEy, Congress mere
ly, by the pEoviaion Of the act Of 1883,
declared thAa eng excess Of fees TscsiV-
ed under ths sst OF 1852 should be
paid over. Frnm this, il Is implied BIZ
counsel, that Congress intended that
the second sesei0n of that set should
have the Soassxaetioa nov eontsnasd for
by the GovsrHm@n&@ But eyen this in
ference 10 not warranted, since Congress,
without intending 70 put construction
upon ths tsrms sx che ass Of 1852, may
hays had suiksisat reasons at policy 10
order tbs excess OF fees received under
that act, 10 be paid into the Treasury.
But suppose Congress had, Ia expressed
terms, declared ia the act OF 1853, that
the second section al the ast OF 1852
should be held to mean that the excess
of fees sysg . certain sum, ghoaid BE-
paid ints the Treasury by the land or
GERS, Whist would have been the eject Of
such proyisiens Why, IL would have
amounted TO this, and nothing nara,
that after the passage Of the ass Of 1853,
che act Of 1852 should Impogt a new Law
with The legislative construction thas all
fees abovs . certain SUN received undss
Il, shoalA ha paid into the TPeaaury. -
Two years later Congress saw at TO re-
enact subasansislIy, bat under wholly
diKerenk sircaHAstaneea, the provision
Of she Becoad session OF the aes Of 1852
without the oselaRasoFy act Of 1858.
What kolIowsf Clearly Ia my oplnfns
| that the Ccugta sheuld eonstrns ths nasn
enactment according 10 iss true Intsnk ana
meaning, ard nos according to . nare iex
| islatavs construction ag ne words II a5ae
| laFMkcFy act passed With referehes T. an
ethsT and afAersnk law, and ID visw af pab
lie exigsnGia@, wA1Ssy different Rrom kho@
which existed &c the time ef the paanag
% the act eg teG3- The Dselasategy Ac
| created RsN lzw La 1854. IL was jask q
IL Congress bad khAny In direct terms, 81
acted that khs sxaass of fees ever aeeEtas
sam, should hs paid iato the Treasury
The Courts are not compelled to accept
Ra giving nsw expsasstoa Of ths isgfsia
tive will. CsagTass haviag twe years Ia
tar, passed another set. expressed In sng
tain ksrnas, tie coarss are Bound 70 inter
i prss khose tsEms mse0sding 10 shaiE uAas
and ordIaaEy- si@miacasion, and By ths a
binary and wen established rules of son
ssraekken. Can it wfkh truth be said TIA
tAa DsslaratarY Ask q 1850, thoagh b
lka expsaas terms sCa6Red to the act 1
II iH6z, neyexghsIsaa applies 10 the suhea
J auens net GK sks6, a0 As 20 Eh&ngs whi
wuutA sshsssmsae ha kA8 srua add EsmkuEs
construction ek fhe last naae1 act W
Win undsFSekA u cay thas she I3glalatzi
nav not. h fsG5s ha&S nd good and 80
esenk raaaams whaEk IA at axiss u -
/ fee paksniksfax khs Land 0Gserxa "a sstal
; n eesupenBal nm. NH Asea paid to skam |
~aes.aEMmsses arsy esSa ees.m8ssass ~ Fmmd - q