The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1878-04-18
STANTON. VIRGINIA. APRIL IS. 1875

known as the funding act, has already beer
determined by this Court. The case of An
toni vs.. Wright ~ Grattan) settles thi
question. The same arguments against it
constitutionality made in this case wer
urged in that. l refer to that case, ant
adopt its principles and reasoning as clea
and conclusive exposion of the law, and an
of opinion that this decision OF the Cour
declaring the constitutionality of the act o
March 80, 1871, and declaring that any ac
of the Legislature in conflict with this act
so far as it may s.forbid the collecting off
GERS of the State to receive in payment O
taxes and other demands Of the State any
thing else than gold or silver silver coin
United States Treasury notes, or note,
of the natior al banks of the Uuited States, !
must be held to be an act ''impairing the
obligation OF contract" and therefore I'M.
constitutional and void. This decision oil
Antoni vs.. Wright was recognized and re.
affirmed in Wise Brothers VS.. Rogers, Audi
tor, and Maury & Co. VS.. same Oath Graf
tam, and must nowIbe held to be the settled
law of this State. 1t is not necessary, there
fore, and indeed 1t would be vain and use.
less task, to attempt to 60 over again the
reasons which governed this Court in coming
to the conclusions then reached and firmly
adhered to ever since. can only say for
myself that after careful consideration OF
all the views which have been presented on
this question, the opinion Of Judge Bouldin
in Antoni VS.. Wright is lucid, able, and
conclusive exposition of the law, is one
based upon judicial logic and fortified by
judicial authority, which makes it impregna-
BILE against every assault which may be
made upon it.
Adopting, therefore the principles and
reasoning in the case of Antoni Us. Wrigh hit,
we are left in this case to single and very
narrow inquiry and that is, care fines i'm
posed for violation Of law included in the
purview of the statLte?'' One of the prin-
cipal and universally adopted rules of con-
struction of statutes is that in the enact
ment of statutes the rule of Interpretation
is, IN respect to the intention Of the Legis-
lature, that where the language is explicit
the courts are bound to seek for the inten-
ton, in the words of the act itself, and t hey
are not at liberty to suppose or to hold
that the Legislature intended any
thing different from what their Ian
guage imparts. [Pot. Dwaris on Statutes,
p. 146.l Words in statute are never to be
considered as unmeaning and surplusage if
construction can be legitimately found
which will give force to and preserve all the
words in the act.
The best rule by which to arrive at the
meaning and intention of law, is to abide
by the words which the law maker has
used. [Dwaris, p. 1919 note.l Especially
is this the case where the words used have
no doubtful meaning, but are plain and ex-
plicr in their Specification, for it is rule
of universal application that effect must be
given TO the words used by the Legislature
where there is no uncertainty or ambiguity
in their meaning.
Now, the words used in the act we are
called upon to construe are as broad, ex-
plicit, and comprehensive as any terms
which could possibly be used. The act de-
clares that coupons shall be receivable at
and after maturity for all tares, debts, dues.
and demands duefnthe State. Is there any
uncertainty or ambiguity in these terms /?
They all have certain definite, explicit,
and technical meaning. We cannot discard
any one of them as unmeaning and surplus
age, but must. according to the rules OF
construction which bind the courts, gice ef-
feet to all. We must suppose the Legisla-
ture knew the ordinary meaning and legal
force of the words which they use. 1t the
provision of the act had been that these
coupons shonld be receivable "for all tares
and debts due the State" there might be
some room for doubt whether fines were en-
braced, for although fines are recovered by
action of debt, and in certain sense a fine
is a debt due the State, yet it might be said
with much force, if not conelusively, tn at
the word debt refers to matters of contract,
and that, therefore, fine is not embraced
in the meaning of the statute in this word
debt. But the words dues and demands are
added. Shall we give no effect to these
words of explicit meaning? Can we take
the liberty of striking these words out Of
the statute? five can, then the courts may
override the powers of Legislature and con-
strue away any act it may pass. These
words dues and demands are not uncertain
and ambiguous, but have certain definite
and explicit meaning. The word due is de-
fined by Webster to be ''that which is owed, :"
''that which custom, station, or law requires
to be paid'; and by Worcester, ''that
which any one has a right to demand, claim
or possess - ''that which can justly be re-
CURED" The word demand is word of
still larger significance and more compre-
hensive meaning. Indeed, Lord Coke says
the word demand is the largest word in
law except claim. In I'd Coke upon Little :
ton 291 h., he says ''Dem0ndum is a
word OF act, and in tine understanding of
the common law is of so large an extent as
no other word in the law is unless it be
claimum whereof Littleton maketh men
ton. section 445. Webster defines 'sde-
manded," ''the asking or seeking what. is
due or claimed to be due > and Worcester,
"a calling for thing due Or claimed to be
DUE" No words OF more explicit or broad
err Specification could have been used than
these two words ''dues and dem ands." We
cannot discard them, but must give them
effect. Do they embrace fines? lam bound
by every rule of construction to say they
do. A fine is something switch the law re-
qures to be paid" and that is the meaning
of the word 'sdues.''
A fine is a thing ''due or claimed to be
due" to the State-a liability which the
State has right to enforce and demand
and that is the meaning of the word ''de-
mand." l am therefore of opinion that
fines are clearly embraced within the mean
ing and the very words of the statute. The
Legislature has used words which by their
explicit, comprehensive and unmistakable
meaning, ''embrace finest as we'll as taxes
and fQbtc oftor ho ,rordx stdupc