, 1884-03-13
OUR EXEMPTION LAW.
TERRIToRY OF WASHNGToN,
Third JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
No. Ca.


NS. demurrer
Wynn ct al
GREENE, j
Defendants, in an affirmative de
fence, claim the exemption of Ger
tain property they describe They
claim the exemption. by virtue OF the
provisions of S347 Of our Code. as
enacted by the legislature Of 1881.
But plaintiffs contend that the
section named has been so changed
by our last legislature. that no eX-
emption whatever can now he had
under it. They make no other point
upon the demurrer, and c6ncede that
if they are wrong on this, the decis-
ion must be against them.
The change in the law is supposed
to have been wrought by an act. ap-
proved November %, 1888, entitled
IAN Act to amend Section 3i7 of the
Code Of Washington" the first and
material section of which is as fol
lows:
SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Leg
iStatice assembly Of the TERRITORY
Of Washington, That section 347 of
the Code of Washington, 1881, be
amended to read as follows: To
teamster OF drayman engaged in that
business for the support of himself
or family, his team, consisting of one
span of horses, mules or oxen, or a
horse and mule, with harness, one
wagon, truck, cart or dray.'
Now, when a legislature passes a
bill IL intends thereby to do some
thing. What in any instance it has
done, Is to be gathered from what 1t
I | intended to DO; and that is to be
collected from the language It om-
iploy5, md --y.4 t..v relation oue Ian
guage bears to previously existing
law. Both by title and enacting
clause of this act of 1888, the legis-
lature has Enthusiastically declared,
that its intention was, not to repeal
anything. but to amend something.
But if, as plaintiffs insist, the read
ing, which the act provides, We're to
be substituted for the entire section
347, then there would be, not an
amendment, but a repeal. For the
new reading, being in structure a
dependent and qualifying clause,
would stand alone and be senseless,
having no principal clause on which
to depend. And to substitute such
senseless clause for the sensible sec
ton 347 would be to substitute moth
ing for something, and be in effect
a repeal of the section.
By the amendatory act, it
is not said that section BAT
shall be amended $50 as to read IN
IT'S entirety, as follows" but it is said
it shall be amended $50 ds to read, as
follows" In what part, is it SO to
read? Or, is it so to read as to the
whole? Manife5tly, not as to the
whole, for that would work Il repeal,
contrary to the tenor and evident
spirit of the act. Therefore, it is so
to read as to some part. As to what
part? Why, of course, as to that
part for which it would be a natural,
fitting and sensible substitute, if
there be any such; and that there is
such Is to be presumed until dill
gent examination has demonstrated
there Is not. Referring to s 347, we
find, on a mere casual inspection, that
the amendatOry reading is an apt
and most appropriate substitute for
the twelfth subdivision of the section.
Carefully scanning that subdivis-
ion, and comparing it with the pre-
cedIng subdivisions, We discover fur
| ther that teamster's exemption was
liable to be considerably in excess OF
what others could claim, and that in
order to equaIize things and give
symmetry and fairness to the sched-
ule, just sneh substitute was re
quired.
There can be no reasonable GUS
ton. then it seems t. me, as to the
intent Of the legislature. Anybody
o: any sense. who l. not Il
lawyer or judge, can tell at a
I gIauc, what that latent l.
I W len "a lnaH h,-.um-~ a lawyer. he
. daes not h.y, ta iu-o h5, witt. u,r
lss4 jBI-s hat- ta D. "a fool I
+ tl.-.rr l...F fl i-..fa af tl.-a 5I.l.--
sis. a H.H fs.F discover .H F-----
rrr ra