The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-02-05
Bungling Legislation.


State, which we deem may be easily, and
will hereafter, be avoided. We allude to
the practice of reiterating Acts upon the
same subjects without; seemingly, having
anyreference to laws before existing, either
by way of amendment or substitution.
This defect is SO noticeable in our
statutes, that stranger in reading them
would be almost justified in concluding
that each member passed his own law;
and that the number and agreement of
Acts upon any subject, depended more on
the chance inclination and concurrence of
individual members than on any consist
ent system of a thoughtful, intelligent,
legislative body. To define, practically,
what we mean, we will point out very
plain instance of this defect.
neighboring farmer asked us the other
day to mention these matters: that in the
country it frequently became necessary for
farmers, for the purpose of self protection,
to take up estray cattle; and that, there
fore, the Legislature had undertaken, be
supposed, to lay down and define, legally,
what proceedings and steps should be
taken to effectuate the purpose sought 3
that such laws ought to be simple, clear
and complete; and that the laws in ques-
ton only worked an evil, where their
confusion OR want of plainness made it
necessary for the taker-up to go to town
and consult lawyer on their construction,
at an expense exceeding the value of the
estray. He further said, that no farmer
could understand the laws on this subject
in this State.
This circumstance has led US to look at
our estray laws, and we must confess that
we think that the farmer who can under
stand these laws, IN the shape they are
passed, has mistaken his occupation, in
being tiller of the soil.
In the old Revised Statutes of 1851,
chapter % is headed thus: "Of Strays'';
and this was the law relative to estrays,
till the Act of August Z, 1858, when the
Legislative Assembly passed an act en-
titled, can Act Regulating Estrays and
Articles Adrift.'' Both of these laws are
contained in the Compiled Statutes, and
stand wholly unexplained or distinguished,
except that the compiler's note to the first
act says: "This act, from the Revised
Statutes, is to considerable ertemt en-
bodied in the act Of august Z, 1858, which
follows; and and it ariN be best to proceed
uuder the latter ac.." The 32d section of
the Act of 1858 also provides, that Gail
acts and parts of acts coming within the
provisions of this act, are hereby repealed"
Thus stood the law until 1868, when
the Legislature passed "An Act to Re-
gulate the Picking Up and Disposition of
Estrays, and to Repeal Contracenins
Acts" This law also, concludes with the
provision, that IAN acts and parts of acts
inconsistent with this act are hereby re-
pealed." Now When it is considered that
each of these acts has from fifteen to for
ty sections, and that they each differ some
what, in point of language and construc-
ton, even while treating of the same sub
jects, it Swill be seen readily, what tan
gled web they all form together.
Tie difficulty seems to consist entirely
in this, that the parties, proposing or
drafting such laws, do not know or care
for the res ,lts of their actions. A MEM
Der has heard of or experienced some ne
cessity for an amendment of some law.
Accordingly, without!taking the. pains to
draw an act, so as to serve as an amend
ment, without disturbing the frame of the
whole law, amended, or so as to serve as
a complete substitute for the former act,
proceeds and throws together any thing
that comes in his head, on the subject =
gives his act a general title, and sa0es all
difficulties and conflicts, as he supposes,
by adding on the general clause, that call
acts and parts of acts, Inconsistent with
this act are hereby repealed"
In this way, the law makers enact
law, without expressing whether they
mean to amend any previous law, or to
pass a substitute, or even in fact to repeal
any part of any law; since the repeating
clause, above cited, leaves the whole mat.
ter of conflict entirely to judicial construc-
ton. The law is no better nor worse for it.
Now if the Legislature would only tell
us, in the title of their acts, what they
meant to amend and what they meant to
repeal, and would confne and conform
their acts, with some degree of exactness,
to their titles, we should then know,
whether the Legislature meant anything
at all, or whether they had expressed
what they meant. No doubt this was one
of the objects Of the trainers of our State
OonstitutiOn. which provides that ssNo