National Republican., 1888-02-01

wbat tbe law e, Leu me cite beVeFh |
casee.
Tho first / shall refer to is entitled Town |
OF South Ottawa vs. Perkins, p. 26l, et |
supra 94, Vol. S. q. Reps, Otto, lV. The |
facts OF this case occurred In my congress
tiopal district, and briefly stated are these!
Certain towns along the line OF the OF
tawa, Oswego and Fox River Valley rail
road voted bonds to the amount OF nearly
half million dollars to aid In the construc-
tion Of said road. The town OF South
Ottawa, acting under published act OF the
legislature, which as eigned by thespeaker
Of the house, the president OF the senate,
and approved by the governor, voted to
issue, and did issue, its bonds to a large
amount for the purpose indicated. These
bonds were delivered to the railroad com.
papy, and by IT to the contractors, who sold
them to investors and used the proceeds
in constructing the road. Every transac-
tion In relation to the issuance and sale OF
the Sc bonds was made In the utmost good
faith. After interest had been paid on the
bonds for year or more II was discovered
that the record made by the secretary OF
lively that the bill granting TO these towns
the authority to vote the issue OF bonds as
indicated above was read third time, and
the yeas and nays called thereon, as the
constitution OF the state requires:
"When the case came on for trial
South Ottawa offered to prove by the jour.
nails Of each house Of the legislature that
there was no entry in the same OF final
vote by the Senate on the act OF Feb. Is,
1851, (giving the town authority to vote).
The testimony was oiected TO, ana was
ruled out by the court on the ground that
the holder OF the bonds was bona ilde
purchaser Of them without notice OF any
objection to their validity; that the first
inetalment was paid atmaturity, and there
fore the defendant was estopped from offer
ing any evidence to show that the act was
not pasted, the same having been duly pub.
lished among the pri-ted statutes as law,
and being, therefore, prima facie q valid
law; In other words, although II might not
have been duly passed, the town, under the
circumstances OF the case, was estopped
from denying Its passage"
Now, the Supreme Court OF the United
States, after stating the case In the Ian
guage above quoted, say "We cannot as.
sent to this view. There can be no estoppel
| in. the way of atctitaining the existence OF
| a faw. That which purports to be law
| OF the state is either law, or else 1t is not
| law, according as the truth OF the fact
may be, and not according to the shifting
| circumstances OF parties"
Further on IN the same opinion Up. 2dO) the
court lays down the general doctrine as fol-
| lows: mot only the courts, but individuals,
are bound to know aud cannot be received
| to plead ignorance OF 1t. The holder OF
| the bonds in question can claim no In.
| dulgence on that score, and caa take no adj
vantage that he is bona tide purchaser
| without notice.
| Again, 1t may be urged that while the law
as laid down 10 the above case applies to
the existence OF a statute, 1t does not apply
to case like the refunding act, In which
q single provision Of the act is In dispute.
To which reply, that in the opinion Just
| quoted the court afiirms the doctrine held
Ia the case OF Gardner vs..The Collector t6
Wall, Sly, viz: "That when question
arises In court Of law OF the existence OF
a statute, or OF the time when statute
took effect, or Of the precise terms OF a
statute, the Judges who are called upon to
decide it have right to resort to any
source OF information which In It's nature is
capable OF conveying to the judicial mind
clear and satisfactory answer to such ques'
tiop, always seeking for that which Is most
appropriate, unless the positive law has
enacted a different rule" The purport OF
the doctrine held is clearly to the effect
that no distinction can be made between
the question Of the existence OF statute
| and that Of the precise meaning OF terms
used in q statute that has been duly passed.
In the case OF Gardner vs. Collector &c
Wall, p. 490) before referred to-. the Su.
preme Court OF the United States held that
i
statutes, and sustains the position taken b.
Lord Coke "that every one is bound to TAXI
notice of what is done In parliament, for
as soon as parliament hath concluded any
thing the law intends that every person
hath notice thereof, for the parliament rep
resents the whole realm" To this Justice
Miller, by whom the opinion, to which ther
was no dissent, was rendered, adds: "ll
! this proposition ne sound, OF which ther,
seems to he no reason to doubt, how cal
| IL be held that the judges, upon whom Il
imposed the burden OF deciding what THE
legislative body has done when 1t Is In dis
pute, are debarred from r-soitlhg to the
written record which that oohy makes
its proceeding in regard to any particu'a
statut.f"
He adds further, that the courts OF las
resort In several of the states have eX
| pretsly decided that this may he done, ant
quotes Purdy VS. The People, a Hill, 3S4l
De Bow VS., The People, ] DEMO, 0)
! Spangler We. Jacobs, l9 Ill, 2sJl' louni
Plank Road, (22 Penna.. 3Id), matter o
Wellman, go VT, 656). Supervisor VS.
. Reenap, (2 Mimi, 33Ol, Fowler VS.. Pierce
The conclusion reached by the Unite
| States Supreme Court Is as follows:
We are of the opinion, therefore, on prir
U | ciple rs well as authority, that whenever
l
| ence of statute, or of the time when staIn'
took effect, Orgtht peft;c tcImS q a ,tat,,Ht. u
Q Judges who are called upon to decide II nav
4 | a right to resort to any source OF iniormatlo
. | which in its nature is capable OF conveying
! | the judicial mind a clear aud satisfactory ~
swer to such question; always seeking ilrst !,
J. | that which is most appropriate, unless u
I positive law has enacted different rule.
g Having shown, as we think. that 1t Is II
u duty OF every holder OF United Stat
u bonds to know all the laws under wh!C
. they were issued, we have next to inqui
what the act entitled "An act to refur
- the public debt" passed July IA, 1870. u
y, :. der authority Of which the bonds known
e what it means? Finding as we have tn
u u the enrolled bill differs from the iourn
=, from which it was copied, the next step is
u examine the rolls from which 1t was c
rolled that we may know how the act
really passed does read. IT Is held IN EDl
In land that "when the copy OF an act Is inc3 (,
" parliament rol.n Pursuing then this ru
ID we find the law to be that the bonds
Nv Nv question are ''redeemable at the pleasu
III OF the Unittd States for thirty years fro
,r the date Of their ISSUE" In this langua
81. there seems to be no ambiguity, 1t Is Gle
le and distinct provision made by the la
q. making power, that Tor thirty years
pleasure OF the United States may be ex'
A. cised in the redemption or payment OF the
n. bonds.
Vattel lays down In his first rule Of int,
be probation for treaties and statutes the +
lowing: "The first general maxim is that
se is not permitted to interpret what has
need Of Interpretation. When an act
i'd conceived In clear and concise terms; VIII
ch the sense is manifest and leads to nothi
he absurd ther' can he no reason to refuse
m. sense which this iact) naturally preeen
To 90 elsewhere in order to restrain or {
d. tinguish It is to endeavor to elude IT," A
m. this rule is adopted by the United Sta
IN Supreme Court in United States VS. Fiil
nd | % Cranch, 35S,)
on Puffendorf says: "As for words, the 7!
IN is, unless there be reasonable ooleSt'
1 L l. n, In Ihnll Nnl