Daily Mississippi clarion and standard. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1866, 1866-07-03


Cranch, 339, the Supreme Court seems to adj
NIT that the compensation of public officer
may besreduced retrospectivelyS for they put
their decision in that case on the ground
that the intent was not manifest to give the
act of Congress retroactive effect
The conclusion we have reached on this
point is in harmony with the other consider
ations bearing upon it. Every State is
bound to the strictest observance of good
faith towards the public creditor, but II is
no: always that States, any more than indi-
viduals, are able at once to hquidate all their
obligations 1t is not to be supposed that
they will ever fail to do whatever Justice re-
quires, but they must determine for them
selves the extent of their capacity, and the
mode of applying their resources. 1t is es-
sential to the very existence OF the state,
penditures The Legislature must of ne
cessity hold the key of the Treasury, and
must decide to what objects the revenue
should be devoted. Its first duty is to pro-
vide for the support of its own government,
and to apportion public burdens according
to the condition and circumstances of the
people. If necessary to postpone the pay
ment of any portion of the public debt, 1t
must determine which shall be first paid.
4. In the fourth place 1t is commended that
the resolution in question did not take effect
until after the Judgment in favor of the re-
lator was rendered; and therefore cannot APP
ply to it.
The Judgment in the court below was rem
dered on the seventh day of December, 1865,
and the resolution was approved on the 25th
of October. The constitution provides that
81 No laws of general nature, unless other
wise provided for, shall be enforced until
sixty days after the passage thereof" Art.
Z, sec 6, Rev. Code, S. This resolution, if
it takes effect st all, must be regarded as a
claw" and as a law "of general nature"
for it is a regulation of public office, in
which the whole people are interested. 1t
speaks in the present tense, and so far indi-
Gates an intention that it should go in force
Immediately. The object it has in view
would also leadto the same conclusion. But
| it is precisely 10 such cases that the consti
| tutional restrGtiOn ordinarily applies. If
expressed in tie future tense, it would con-
! vey with it itsown limitation. The effect of
| the clause appears to be, that laws in the
present tense (which, without some such re-
| striction, would go into effect Immediately,
| by force of the general language employed
| shall not be enforced until after sixty days
| from their passage, unless contrary provl-
| sion is made 1t is not necessary, however
| that tits provision shall be made in express
affirmative words, nor that it shall be con-
| tanned in the same act. 1t is sufficient if the
| intention of the Legislature is clearly mani
| tested IN some other manner than by the
| general phraseolOgy of the act or resolution
| itself. Let us see then whether the Legisla-
ture has made any provision as to the time
when this resolution should be enforced.
| As onep part of statute is properly called
| in to help the construction of another part,
and is fly so expOunded as to support and
| give effect if possible, to the whole, so is the
comparison of one law with other laws made
| by the same legislator, or upon the same sub
ject, or relating expressly to the same point,
| eniOined for the same reason, and attended
with a like advantage. In applying the
maXims of Interpretation, the object is
| throughout, tiist to ascertain, and next to
| carry into etfed, the intention of the Trainer
1t is to be inferred that code of statutes
relating to one subject was governed by one
| spirit and policy, and was intended to be
| consistent and harmonious in its several
| parts and prOviiiOns 1t is therefore on es-
tablished rule Of law, that all acts in pdri
mdterid are to be taken together, as if they
were one law, and they are directed to be
compared in the construction of statutes, be
cause they are considered as framed upon
one system, and having one object i'll view
Dwarris on Statutes, 500.
1t is necessary, therefore, to a proper un
| Outstanding of the intention of the Legisla
ture, that we should look at all the acts
passed at the same session in relation to this
subject. These were indeed quite numerous
but reference to three joint resolutions
and two bills, will give us sufficiently com
prehensive view of the subject, and enable
us to understand the policy adopted. 1t ii
to be promised that when the Legislature
assembled on the sixteenth day of October
1865, the State was under the Federal mill
tary rule, its civil government had been to
tally subverted, and that there was not
dollar i'll the Treasury, nor any possibility o
collecting revenue without considerable
delay. The Provisional Governor had
however, collected a considerable amoun
above the wants of his administration, which
he was willing to turn over to the new Stat
authorities. Under these circumstances, tn
Legislature adopted a joint resolution, whicl
was approved October 81, 1865, to the fol
lowing purpOrt, tO-wit:
SEC. l. BE it resOlred, &c, That the Treas
urer be, and he is hereby authorized to re
ceive from the Provisional Government o
the State any public monies that may be re
naming in the treasury of said Govern
ment.
SEC. 2. That the said public monies shal
remain subject to such appropriations a
may be made by this Legislature.
SEC. 3 That the Treasurer shall file hi
receipt therefor with the Auditor OF Publ
Accounts, or duplicate thereof"
1t Will be observed that this resolution
obnoxious to all the criticism that is urge
against the validity of the resolution whic
is brought especially under examination i
, this cause. 1t lacked the enacting claus
directed by the constitution, and it contain
ed no provision for being enforced with
sixty days. Nevertheless it was acted upO
Immediately, the money was received int
, the Treasury, and the Legislature proceeded
during the session, to make appropriation
| several of them by joint resolutions payabl
out of this fund, which, as is seen above, wa
| placed exclusively under the control of til
Legislature. As soon as this fund was T,
: ceived into the Treasury, the Legislator
passed the joint resolution now in question
D in the words already quoted, THAT til
} | Auditor of Public Accounts be, and he is her
r | by directed to issue no more warrants upo
{ the Treasurer for the payment of money, III
| til further orders" This was approved o
2 the 25th day of October, and was shortl
, | followed by another resolution, approve
! October 81. 1855, to this effect, to-wit: "Tha
J., the Treasurer be, and he is hereby ordere
4 not to pay out any monies now remaining
or that may hereafter be received, in I'll
! Treasury of the State, unless especially O
e dered by the Legislature, until further O
, | ders" Having thus undertaken to repe:
: all existing laws empowering the Auditor I
9 issue warrants and authorizing the Urea
: urer to pay them, the Legislature proceede
+ to define the powers and duties of these of
, GERS in the future. By act approved Decen
0 Der 2, 1865, (omitted in the published laws
e it was enacted, That the Treasurer be, an
Y he is hereby authorized to pay all Auditor
j warrants issued by authority of the Legisl
i ture, and all appropriations passed at I'll
l. present session; and all other salaries
s State and District officers, and other claim
|, accruing since the 10th day of October, 1S6
/, out of any monies in the Treasury not othe
# wise appropriated" 1t was also provide
d by act approved December 4, 1865, "Tni
T the Auditor of Public Accounts be. and he
, hereby authorized to issue his warrants q
t the Treasurer for all legal claims against ii
o State accruing from the sixteenth day
y October 1865" Both these latter acts co
), tain a second section, declaring, THAT tn
n act shall take effect and be in force from al
after its passage"
i All this action of the Legislature being
# the same subject and having but one objec
II it is to be construed together, and regardt
IT as forming but one law. 1t is plain that Il
# two acts last named are based on the assum
- ton that all authority to issue and pay wa
l. rants had been repealed, and they resto
l. that authorityto the extent that it is inten
E. | ed to be afterwards exercised They reco
II nize the previous resolutions as having
} ready taken effect, and they amount, ther
l. selves, to a provision that the resolutiC
l. shall take effect, at least, from the date
l. the passage of these acts. Upon the hypot
= esis that the previous law, contained in tt
+ Code, remained in force, these acts we
g wholly unnecessary and useless, for full a
e thority, in that case, would have alrea6
If been in existence for the issuance and pa
Q ment of warrants for all claims, wheth
IS aceruing before or after the sixteenth
% October. If the resolutions do not tai
It effect from their passage, we will have tt
II anomaly of two acts of the Legislator
L founded upon the resolutions, and designt
d to supply defect in the law, occasioned
= their passage actually taking effect three
d four weeks in advance of the resolution
f themselves To avoid such result, whiC
, Legislature, we are justified in holding thi
II these acts adopted and gave effect to I'll