The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1870-05-21

In Stafford VS.. Ills Creditors, the new
law treated specifically of the penalty
for fraudulent bankruptcy, and we held
that so much of the old law concerning
this penalty, as was not rstained in the
new, was repealed" And Mr.. Justice
Buchanan concurred in this view of the
effect Of the repeating clause.
These decisions and opinions were
matters of record and publication, and
formed an important chapter in the ju-
risprudenco of the State, when the Leg,
islature of 1870 adopted the revisory
laws which we are now considering
We must presume that the Legislature
had them in view when they made use
of the repeating clause which had been
SO fully interpreted : and even if we
doubt the correctness of the interpreta-
ton, we can hardly imagine case in
which the interests of society more
loudly demand an obedience to the
rule stare decisss
There is no doubt that if criminal
statute is repealed, the prisoner who is
being prosecuted under it must be dis
charged but we must decide upon pre-
cedent that the statute now under view
has not been repealed, but only contin-
ued in force as portion of a revisory
system. We may properly quote in this
connection the language of chief Justice
Shaw in the case of Wright VS.. Oakley,
S Metcalf (Mass.), page 4o6.
In constituting the revised statutes and
the connected acts Of amendment and
repeal, it is necessary to observe great
caution to avoid giving an effect to
these acts which was nev"r contempla-
ted by the Legislature. In terms, the
whole body of the statute law was re-
pea'ed but these repeals " ent into op-
Grafton simultaneously with the revised
statutes, which were substituted for them
and were intended to replace them with
such notifications as were intended to
be made by that revision. There was
no moment in which the repeating act
stood in force without being replaced
by the corresponding provisions of the
revised statutes. In practical opera
tion and effect, therefore, they are rath
er to be considered as a continuance and
modification of old laws than as an ab-
rogation of those old, and the re-enact-
ment of new ones. In order to construe
them correctly we must take the whole
of the revised statutes, together with the
act of amendment and the repeating act,
and consider them in reference to the
known purposes which the Legislature
had in view in making the revision.
There are decisions of this court
which seem'to assert doctrine differ
ent from that we have here adopted-the
cases Of State VS.. King, IL Ann, $50; !;
State VS.. Morgan, IL Ann, 7l2, and
State VS.. O'Connor, 13 Ann, 1856. But
of all these cases it may be remarked
that they do not involve the question
of revisory legislation, it's intention and
effect. The last two are based on
the first, and in the first, one member
of the court at least recognized this
distinction and stated it as one of the
reasons of his concurrence We do not
think these decisions affect, or were in
tendedao affect those before quoted.
For the reasons given it is ordered
that the judgment appealed from be
affirmed, with costs.
Chief Justice Ludehng delivered a
seperate concurring opinion in the case.