Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1870-10-05
THE REPEAL MIDDLE AGAIN.

Editor Of fks Stdr: IL Is simply amusing to
witness the confusion Of those who attempt To
answer the plain language Of an act of Congress
abolishing large number OF acts by description.
One writer supposes, that as the captions Of the
acts we're not given, but only a description by
chapter, date, volume and page there may be
some doubt as 20 what was intended. To that
L reply: q Id oertEm est. gaOd oertHm rcddi po-
tsst'-that is certain which can be rendered GER
tain others suppose that 1.-THE acts and parts
OF acts set forth in the schedule Of acts cited,
hereto annexed, are hereby repealed" are
this Is answered by the schedule itself: ..ScAed-
be u statutes cited and repealed, as printed "a the
S'dtates at Ldroe, including ssch portions only Of
20 the Patent o9o,." Ii wall thus be seen that rs
to the appropriation bills parts only are repealed;
as TO the others, all are repealed. "Iaclaio
language OF Lord Coke" rhe things enumerated
more strongly exclude the things not enumer-
ated than would any formal words for that pur-
pose" The law-givers enumerated the apprO-
IIiation bills only and thereby eNcu Ted the sub
treasury act, the act creating the Interior De-
partment and Office Of the Secretary OF INTERIOR
&c, &c. 1hey are thus repealed by plainly ex-
Another argument is that Congress could not
have intended a repeal 80 sweeping. 1 antici-
pated this argument In my fret opinion. It il
persuasIye; but note the remarks Of Mr.. Jastice
Mclean, In Dem VS.. Reid, 10 Peters, 527 =
Where the language of the act is not clear, and
is Of doubtful construction, a court may well
look TO every part Of the statute; at its title and
the mischief INF ended TO be remedied in carry
ing IL into effect. But IL is not for the court TO
say, where the language Of the statute is clear,
that II shall be so construed a. 20 embrace cases.
because no good reason can be assigned why
they were excluded from its provisions.
The legisldture hdriE9 made sisfiactiOn between
ecdses, she,eTit cds Intentional not reasonable
or Unredsondble, the court are bound by me clearly
oppressed language If fke act"
10 lawyers I need not say that this very Ian
guage might be fortified BY ten thousand Judi
cial opinions and standard authors extending
tender cases in sth Wallace.
Were the words of the act doubtful. we might
consult many canons OF interpretation-sucha as
have been feebly invoked. But nothing in Law
is palmer than "dre hereJy repeaIed."7 In the
language OF the great fathers Of the Law, ga
statute is like the lioa, which makes void all
that he touches" There is nothing OF the
''Lursing mother" about this repeating act.
There are some other dr2uneRts which I need
not answer One Is that Mr.. Jenckes laughs at
the idea that he intended repeal The Scriptures
describe some laughers at their own folly. DO
not wish 10 come under the classification. But
Mr.. Jenckes is made TO say that this Is the first
time in history where the less has been msfe TO
include the greater. suppose that this has ref
erence to the rule that a statute which relates
TO inferior dignitaries shall not, by general
words, be made TO extend to superiOr-which
being interpreted means. that the regulation OF
patents and copyrights ia An inferior work, and
the business carried on by inferior people, TO
the affairs Of the Treasury and the persons OF
the Assis tant Secretary of the Treasury AMI the
Secretary of the Interior.
am not one Of those who believe that there
are superior subjects IN our laws, or that men
are made superior by the factitious holding of
ce. All things and men are subject 70 the
law; and law regulating the running at large
and his Cabinet if IL be SO written in tie Law.
A law sppropTiating money merely did take
away the power Of the President TO remove Of
hcers Of the Army and Navy; and another law
of the same class limited his power ever both.
Congressional legislation knows no classes or
Another ding is that my opinion may be in
huer ced by resentment against Jacob ID. Cox.
That lie, that may wish his ONCE abolished. A
law author and advocate, who has areputationto
maintain, cannot stoop TO answer anything 50
contemplate. Suppose il were true, can the
decisions Of any court be controlled by n?
Would any man worthy Of being heard advance
such an argument? Put forth as il is, it shows
the desperation Of the cause. The question
cannot be controlled by the feelings or Ar. Cox
or myself.
ted States VS. Babbitt, a Black, 56,) and let the
test there applied be invoked let the canons
St.tes "a Freemsn f3 Howard, 3es) be applied,
and then we .hail see where these n'ppant crit
have no special interest iu the question. IL
is OF too great gravity for Idle discussion. II
involves the safety of the treasury, the integri-
ty Of legislation, and the strength Of the exeez-
The blunder is not 90 marveHa=s The Lexis-
lature OF Georgia onne abolished the peniten-
tiary code, anc oy general WORDS, Not sstesded,
years without penalty. The evil was great. But
the courts did not hesitate 70 cay that the words
of repeal, being explicit, must prsuad, although
il As possibly intended 70 revive the panish-
mentf OF death, whipping and branding. So
here some statutes creating feloniee are repealed
In express words.
IL may sometimes appear very unreasonable
70 repeal lawr. But when they are repeated
IN express words, even appeals pending In the
Supreme Court OF all with the laUs, e Wss held
in McCkrdlee case, wallace, sos; Insursoce
Company v. Ritchie, Wall, 544. fhn las. case
holds that when jurisdiction Of cause dspepdx
upon . statute, the repeal Of which takes aWay
the jurisdiction, or II Ia prohi bited By su bee-
quent statute, IL can no longer be exercised
And 20 IL was held that the repeal by the Nth
amendment, OF the Constitution Of the United
States necessitated the dismissal OF ali pens ng
actions; hallingsworth v. Virginia. Dale, Ts,
Cohens v. Virginia, whesrr. 81; Ceorsta "
Brailsford, Dale, is2. An these acts ofrepesi
destroyed positive rights, byfsx,ealing the lave
upon which the remedies rested Bu. the coarss
looked only TO the fact OF repeal. 80
And now undertake to say, that no respects
Die Jurist has ever been found bold enoasn 90
anrm that express words repes,t1g Q s.ttcce
shall not operate; or that . statute repealed by
express words, has ever been revived BY mere
fnferential legiel alton. GEo. W. PAsczAL.
~ - u -