National Republican., 1888-02-01
TEE FOUR PER CENT. BONDS
REPREsENTATIvE PLUMB MAKES HIS
UNANswERABJE ARGUMENT.
a Matter of vital Importance to be
Considered by the House Committee
ON the Judiciary-The Law Appealed
to-An Evident Fraud,

Representative Plumb, Of Illinois, yester.
day made an argument before the House
committee on the judiciary in explanation
Of bic resolution calling for an investiga-
tion OF the circumstances under which
certain words were changed in the act au-
thorizipg the per cent. loan, so as to pre-.
vent the bonds from being called before
the expiration OF thirty years after the
passage OF the act. He said
Mn. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE
COMMITTEE The facts stated In the pre-
amble to the resolution, IL true, justify the
Investigation sought, which properly en-
braces the whole subject OF the right OF the
government to redeem outstanding interest
bearing obligations as controlled by exist
ing legislation.
In discussing this subject shall endeavor
TO present what, as / understand, the law
as published is In respect to such redemp-
iioB, and later show how the law as actually
passed by Congress reads, and Its effect
upon the right Of the government In the
premises.
FIRST, THE LAW AS pUDLIsuED.
The first enactment in order as well as
importance to be considered ia the general
law as found in Title NLll OF the Revised
Statutes, which relates to the public de1t.
A careful reading Of this entire statute,
containing sixteen sections, viii show that
II was intended TO be, end is, a compilation
from the various acts which had been
passed from time to time prior to 1873 on
sll matters relating to the public debt. IL
there be q doubt In the mind OF any one as
TO this intention 1t must he removed by Sec
tion 55g5 OF the Revised Statutes, which
declares:
The foregoing scventy.three titles embrace
the statutes of the United States, general aud
permanent in their nature, In force on the lst
day of December, one thousand eight hundred
and seyenty.three, as revised and consolidated
by commissioners appointed under an act OF
Congress, and the same shall be designated
and cited as the Revised Statutes of the
United States.
In order to remove all questions as to
what acts or parts OF acts were intended to
be repealed by the re.enactment OF the Re-
vised Statutes, section 5506 provide:
All acts OF Congress passed prior TO said first
day OF December, one thousand eight hundred
and seyenty-three, any portion of which IL
embraced in any section Of said revision, are
hereby repealed, and the section applicable
thereto, shall be in force IN M lieu thereof; al
sion having been repealed or superseded by
subsequent acts or not being general aud per.
eorpora,ion % into said !: revision OF any general
and permanent provision, taken from an act
making appropriations or from an act contain
SheT sba G Gcs
any way affect any appropriation or any pro.
vision Of a private, local, or temporary char
sSe1 contained in any Of said dcs but The
Congress passed prior to said last named day
no part OF which is embraced in said revision
shall not be affected or changed by its enact
ment
Now, with this clear expression Of what
was done by the revision approved Jan. 22
1874, II we 90 back and examine Title XLII
which, as we have already stated, covers
the entire subject Of the public debt, 1t will
lie seen that sections 1905, 1896, 3607, and
3101 re-enact several sections OF the re
funding act. For instance, section OF tht
reiundipg act contains a provision for the
cancellation Of bonds which have been pur'
chased, and is re-enacted in section 3695 o
the Revised Statutes.
Again, section 4 Of the refunding act pro
vides for the payment and cancellation o
the per centum bonds, together with th,
order Of the numbers in which they shal
be paid, and that interest shall cease afte
the call, all Of which is re-enacted in sec
tion 1907.
Section 6 Of the refundipg act also has Il
it provisions relating to the sinking fuut
and the cancellation and destruction OF tn
bonds purchased, which are re.enacted II
sectign 1895 Of the Revised Statutes. Ca
there be question but that several portion
Of the refundipg act are embraced In th
Revised Statutes And II, In the languag
Of the law, the enactment Of any portio
works a repeal, can there be any doubt tha
the enactment Of these several portion
fails to work repealP And is 1t not tru
that the sections applicable thereto are !
force In lieu Of the repealed sections?
1t should be kept IN mind that the re
funding act bears date July II, 1870, an
that the revision of the statutes was az
proved June 90, 1874, which revision, b
express terms, included all acts passed pric
TO bee. !, 1873.
II there remains a question as to the fa'
Of the statutory repeal OF the reiundin
act, II may be further insisted that, as
general principle Of law, the later act r
reals by necessary implication the form,
one. In the case Of the United States Y
lyman III Wal, sS) the court says: "ri
revision Of 1874, while protesting to folio
previous statutes was In law new enac
mept, and wherever, either by accident I
design, provisions of previous law a
altered In the Revised Statutes the Revlst
Statutes must CONTROL" A strong instan
1T this is exhibited In the case Of the Unit
Is Zsta.es.-.ys. Bowen, 200 U. S. Reps, sos
d where change was made in the Revls,
statutesfrom pre.existing enactments, al
the circumstances almost unquestionab
thow that the alteration was pure ac'
dent. Notwithstanding this fact, howevt
The Revised Statutes, their language bell
clear and unequivocal, were held to contr
all prior enactments, and to repeal such
were inconsistent Herewith. Mr. Justi
court said Up. 5l3): The Revised Statut
must be treated as the legislative declar
ton Of the statute law on the subjet
which they embraced on the 1st day OF L
cember, 1873 When the meaning is plf
the courts cannot look to the statu
which have been revised to see II Congrt
erred in that revision, but may do so VIII
70 lpnbtful lanuna
used in expressing the meaning OF &c
But it may be claimed that while sever
sections of the refunding act are repeale
thus working repeal OF "any act OF Go
gress, any portion of which is embraced
any section OF said revision" yet section
Of said retundlng act, which provides
the Issuing of all Of the bonds now o.
standing, and fixes the date of their n
turity, both provisions being temporary
their character are thereby exempted fr'
the repeal. If this be so, what becomes
section 3603 OF the Revised StatutesG Il
made a nullity, by an, act OF
date of the revision2 Can general Ia
he made OF no effect In any manner, exc
by being repealed? ?
In Ellis vs., Paige, 4 Pickering, 43,)
supreme court OF Massachusetts said
45); ut is well settled rule that wi
6by eIhtute 10 'e'ioSu, VI ono aSo h"u
from another, some parts being omit
ana others retained, the parts omitted
rot TO be revised by construction, but
70 te considered as annulled. To b
otherwise would be TO impute to the lie!
lature gross carelesness or ignorance, wh
is altogether inadmissible."
Another instance OF the controlling ell
of the Revised Statutes OF the United Sta
over pre- existing enactments is found
the case of United States VS.. Hammond
Woods, PIP. l072 203 1t there clearly
pesred that section SEQ of the Revl
Statutes was re enacted by mistake,
original law from which it was taken h
ing been repealed before the enactmeu
ikn ranisinn, hnt InnUn Wnnls-AfterM