National Republican., 1888-02-01

WoIue VI STATUTE, anu every paIJ VI ~
must be so construed as to give It force.
United States We. Fisher, 100 U. s. Re.
porte, 143.)
The case Of the United States VS.. AufF-
mordt, 1872 U. S. Reports, 1917, Is a very re-
cent case reafflrmiDg the principle that
where statute is passed covering whole
general subject, It. repeals all former laws
covering that subject, because II takes
their place and there is nothing left for the
previous laws to operate upon.
II the provision OF section OF the refund-
ing act still stands as q portion OF existing
law 1t can only be said that these acts must
be construed together, and In such manneras
to give effect to both, as nearly as possible.
Surely this principle Of construction is too
well established to require the support OF
any quoted authorities. Such construction
applied to the provisions Of the general law
and the provisions OF the refunding act re-
latiDg to the maturity Of the bonds must
be construed to mean that said nonds are
redeemable after the expiration OF the num-
Der Of years reclted therein, unless prior to
that time "bonds Of the United States bear
ing less rate Of interest can be sold at par
In COIN" in which case the bonds are now
redeemable at the pleasure OF the United
States government.
Thus far have confined myself to pre-
sentation of what is believed to be the law
as It stande, and the right IT confers upon
the government to redeem its outstanding
interest bearing obligations In the manner
set forth In section 1903 OF the Revised
Statutes. Let US now take one step further,
and II possible determine the actual pro-
visions Of The tdD as enacted, which pro-
vides for the Issuing OF the bonds known as
per cents. The allegations Of the pre-.
hmble to the resolution under consid-
Grafton are that the said law known
as the funding act, as II was ac-
H., bnt hnncae nj
provides that the above named per cent.
bonds were made payable at the pleasure OF
the United States fOr thirty years from the
date OF their issue, and not after, as pub
lished In the Statutes at Large. Now, 1t
would be difficult to find In our language
two words with more opposite definitions
than these propositions "for" and "after."
Webster says "The radical sense OF for is
to 90, to pass, to advance, to reach, or
Stretch" and that 1t signifies during, aud
Worcester adopts the same definition.
On the other hand, the same authorities
define the word "aftern to mean following,
or later in time.
1t follows, then, that
AS THE LAW STANDS UPON THE RECORDS
OF both houses OF Congress, the bonds com
monty called 4 per cents are redeemable at
the pleasure Of the United States at any
time during thirty years. II may be In.
sisted, however, that inasmuch as In the
rtfunding act as published in the Statutes
at Large the word 'after" is used, there:
fore the law must be held to be In accord
with what was published as the law, not.
withstandiDg the facts as l have stated
them are found to be true in every particu-
lar, and to support this view the case OF
Pease VS.. Peck us Howard, p. 500 will
be quoted. This was a case arising In
the state of Michigan, where law which
was "adopted and published by the COVER
nors and judges Of the then Northwestern
Territory, to be in force until the organiza-
tion Of the general assembly therein, unless
dsapproved by Congress, but afterwards
the legislature shall have authority to alter
| them as they shall see ft." In a volume Of
| laws so published there was contained a
certain statute Of Limitation, which was re-
enacted by revision Of the laws, but sub
seQuently the phrase "beyond the seas" was
| dropped out OF the statute without express
legislative authority, and for thirty years
the statute OF limitation had been acted
| upon with the phrase "beyond the seas
left out. One Of the parties to the case
sought to give effect to the law as 1t was
originally worded, but the court held
"when law as published has been. ac
knowledged by the people and received tht
Of years, the propriety may well be doubled
OF referring to any ancient manuscript tt
show that the law as published was not ar
exact copy Of the original manuscript"
This case and the one under discussion
differ 60 widely In the circumstances uude
which they each arose that the doctrin
laid down in the former case can nave M
bearing on the latter.
In discussing the question Judge Grie
said ''It must be remembered that there
is no allegation or pretense that the ac'
published by authority OF the LEGISLATURE
differs from the original reported to then
ard adopted by them. That is the onl,
original, II there be any in existence, b,
which the printed copy could be corrected
or amended. But to correct or amend tn
declared will OF the legislature as published
under their authority by the words OF
document that did not emanate from then
% would be, in our opinion, 1udtcia
legislation Ind arbitrary assumption"
The language of the court thus give
shows conclutively that IL the same var
ance had been shown between a law a
passed 6y the legislature OF Michigan, an
as published by their authority, no such dt
cision OF the case would have been rel
dered.
Having shown, as we think, conclusivel
that there is a Total lack OF authority I
sustain the view that the erroneous publ
cation Of a supposed law can defeat th
!, will of the lawmaking. power, we sha
trine that, in case of dispute, the recor
made by both houses Of Congress and al
proved by them can alone determine whs
! J the law is. In the case before us we nav
I an enrolled hill now on file In the office I
the Secretary of State, which has bee
. signed by the Speaker of the House, II
President OF the Senate, and approved !
, the President, which reads the same as Il
} published act and makes the per cen
. bonds redeemable at the pleasure OF u
) United States after thirty years, but u
enrolled bill differs from the bill as vote
s upon by Congress in this, that In the latt
the bonds are redeemable at the pleasure
q the United States for thirty years.
WHICH is THE LAW?
q A similar question has been raised
Q England. In Nays Treatise on Procee
: ings in Parliament 1t is said Up, -55D tn
since the assent OF the Queen, Lords al
Parliament is essential to the validity OF
, act, :,
irregularities in the same way that the pa
ing OF bill in the Lords would preclu
r inquiry as to the informalities In any pl
: yious stage?
. 9. Is the Endorsement on the bill recor
n ing the assent OF Queen, Lords, and Co
n mons conclusive evidence OF the fact, or
" 3. May the journals OF either House
Ii permitted to contradict ttp
q The first case in which q dilhculty arc
10 was in the 33d OF Henry vi.
10 In that case the lords, In order to ave
Vt certain construction as to the date on VIII
certain bill was 10 take effect altered
10 date, but did not return the bill to the co
}. mons. .
n A motion was made to Impeach the vail
d ity Of the act on the grounds that the co
d mons ought 10 have had the bill back.
re the hearing Chief Baron lllingworth a
re- Mr.. Justice Markham were OF the opini
d that If the amendment made the bill vary
s. effect from that which was cent up from
II commons, the act would be invalid. Ch
Justice Fortescue concluded the case
ct saying, ''This is an act Of parliament, a
es we will be well advised before we AM
IN any act OF parliament, and peradvent
o | ~ rnnAtnn .nnnht N wnit mill The nl