The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-11-24

are designated or referred 10. and cOnse-
+ cuenily coupons purporiing TO be detached
from bonds issued under the act Of 1879 do
not fall within the purview Of the act in
question. such Is the coupon rendered by
the Taxpayer in this ease In payment Of his
state tax.
We think this i the plain and obvious
construction Of the enaeting clauses OF the
act o. January Il, lSS2, before referred 10.
/ There j. no ambiguity or olScurty in the
/ Language employed in said clauses; and II
any other coupons than those described by
section / were contemplated by section
they would be excluded from the proyi-
sions made by - ,tions /, ,. and 3, whilst
the coupons described by section | would
be embraced not only by those sections.
but also by section 4. There is nothing in
the language employed by the act which
requires such a construction, and il i not
reasonable that the trainers of the act could
have intended to make such 4 difference in
the provisions a. 10 the two classes OF COLI
ponS.
But II J. conte-ded that the preamble
shows iha' II was the intention 0f the
Legislature TO include coupons which pur-
ported 10 De detached from bonds issued
under the act Il the 2Sth u March, 1879,
- well - under the act Of 1871. II Is per-
hap. sufficient answer 10 say that II such
wa, the intention Of the legislature they
did not execute such intention.
The preamble docs state hy way Oi recital
10 /, not an avcrmen) that bond, purport-
irg 70 have been issued by authority Of
the act Of March 80. 1871, and under act
~ March -. 1879, are in existence without
authority Of law: and whereas other such
bond, are IN existence. which are .puIi-
ou,. stolen. or forged. which bear coupons
in The ,imilitudc Of genuine coupons. 90. ::
and whereas the coupons from such >puii-
ous. stolen. or forged bonds are received
in payment Of taNe-. &c.; and whereas
genuine coupon, from genuine bonds. after
having been received in payment oi taNcs.
Sc. are frauduientiy rci-,ued and received
more than once in such / ymntS: and
whcroa, such frauds on the right, ~ tie
holder. o. The aforesaid bond, impair the
contract made 10y the Commonwealth with
them. that the coupons thereon should Dee
r',cNrd I'm payment oi all i1Nc,. a.. and
at the same time dciraud her ont Of her
revenues: Therefore. for the pUrpo>- az
protecting the right, Of aid hondbold"r>.
sud q enforcing tho said contract between
them and the Commonwealth. ana ~ pre-
venting frauds in the revenue ~ the ,anie.
81. b Il enacted jg he Goo'rd, AS>tm-
BIZ of I'tgwjq." The enactiug clauses
which follow show what thc Legislature did
towards executing said purposes. And
f they show uncqIiyocally and without am
hiSuity or Obs .irity that il made provision
only with regard u thr coupons which
purportcd 10 DE detached from bonds issued
undr the act u ISL.
For some reason, doubtless satisfactory
20 the Legislature, Or by unintentional
omission. IL only pr0yidcdby IL enactment>
FOR protection "a, it profc--es Of the rights
- the bondhOiders. and ol enforcing the
contract between them and the Common
wealth. and preventing fraud, in the rcYe-
nuc II the same in relation 10 coupons
which were rendered in payment 0f taxes
under the act Ol ISL. and made no ailu-
,ion 10 any that might be- rendered under
the at Of 1S7J Why the Legislature
should have provided by the set only for
the evils rccited - existing under the act
u ISL. when reference l. made 10 them
los way ~ recital in the preamble q. exist
ing under both act-. we do not know.
The omission. whether intentional or I'M
Intentional. cannot he supplied 10y the
courts. IN Denn rS. Reid. 10 Peters. 90.
Nr. Justice Mclean. speaking Tor the
Court. said: We are unable 20 say why
the benefits of thu statute were given "a
those who held under deeds proved By
the subscribing Winc>>e-. and Withheld
from those ~ hose deed, Were proved by the
acknowledgment Of the grantor. IN most
eases. if not in al. proof by acknoWledg-
ment would be deemed more satisfactory
than bv witnesses; but the Legislature
having made distinction between the
cases. whether it was intended or not. rca-
>onablc or unreasonable. the Court ar'
bound 10y the cleJrly-cNprc->ed language
oi the act"
Nor can such provision. being omitted
in the uuryieW or body Of the aci. be- sup
piled hy the preamble. We are told by
high authority that 3" harrington ha- shown
i'm hi> observations ON The >f1:ute-. 10y many
instance. that % statute frcqucnilyfeclic'
that which wa, not the real occasion ~ th,
law. or state, that doubts existed A. 10 tho
law. when. i'm fact, none were entertained
The most common recital for the inir0dur
ii1n of ANY new regulation has been 10 sci
forth that doubt. have arisen at thr com
mon law. Frequently these alleged doubt
never existed at all. ."-DWaTTi> on tou>ti
tution> and >tliute-. page 1903. Ihi> being
49,. il would not DE safe 10 rely Oh ihe pre-
amblc for the occasion or purpose OF TIE
law.
The preamble j. not ~ essential part o
the act. II q, often. and now. indeed. gen
er.llv omitted. and j, without force IN
le-1,latiye sense: being bat guideto. anl
notthcNehcle Of. the import of the statute
And to what i, il properly euidc-to th'
meaning of tbe enactment: No: bui q
the intentions OF thc lrImor. which 3, only
the t.r,t stage on the road in the c0n,iur
zion oi -tatutc>.-POttcr'- DWdrri>. - lU.
II is only The tr,t stage. For il there ai'
not word, i'm the cnactinS clause Il carry
out tht intention il j, ol 40 force. 90 II Is
chiefly from The purNicW Oi The al ihAi th'
will al the Legislature j. 10 be- learned
And when this i clear and eXprc,- neithcI
preamble nor utlc will avail 10 contradic
or oycrrnlc il. ii."-SedWick on CONSTRUCTION
NJ statute and Constitution Law. =. -
The preamble To the statute. SAY The ~
. urcmc Court Of lllinoi-. l. no part 81 Ia
.cf Ii may assist in a>certaininG the lru'
intent and meaning Of the Legislature
when that j. doubtful and uncertain IRON
The body II the act. The preamble J.
rron.rly referred 10 when doubts or ambi
. '1,ifie. arise upon the word, Of the enact
r ing part. The preamble can never enarse
il cannot confer any power per s.. Mr.
Justice story. cited hY Dwarri-, supra
In support Of the doctrine that The pream
HE canno; extend the enacting clause Lore
, Peterborough said in Wilson rs. hnabhy
, East. rs: Il agree that the grievance
recited in the preamble 10 the act woul'
/, have led one 10 suppose that the Legisla
, tmre meant 10 have given a larger remcd.
,b1n rbe action Of debt against the devise
oi land. 10 recover damages for breach o
covenant 10y the deyisor. But for us to eX
te,d ,be words to the action OF coyenan
would be to legi,late. and not to constru
! tbe act, Of the Legislature" Lord Er