Dakota farmers' advocate. (Canton, S.D.) 18??-1890, 1890-07-25
FOOTPRINTS OF CORRUPTION.
An Illinois Republican Congressman Uncon.
sciousiy Exposes 4 Piece Of
Crookedness.
Indisputabie Evidence That An Important
u. s. Statute Has Been A Victim
of the Forgerers Handiworh.
[Continued from last week. i
WAS IT A FORGERY.

WAS IT A FORGERY.
The testimony was objected to, and
was ruled out by the court on the ground
that the holder Of the bonds was a bona
tide purchaser of them without notice Of
any objection to the validity; that the
first installment was paid at maturity, and
therefore the defendant was estopped
from offering any evidence to show that
the act was not passed, the same having
been duly published among the printed
statutes as a law, and being, therefore,
2,rima .tfacie valid law; in other words,
although it might not have been duly
passed, the town, under the circum-
stances Of the case, was estopped from
denying it's passage
Now the supreme court Of the United
States, after stating the case. in the lam
guage above quoted, say:
'sWe cannot assent to this view There
can be no estoppel in the way of ascer-
tanning the existence Of a law. That
which purports to be law of the stateis
either u law or is not a law, according as
the truth of the fact may be, and not ac-
cording to the shifting circumstances of
parties.'
Mr.. Plumb continues his speech by
reviewing a large amount of cotroborative
testimony. from high judicial authority
on cases Of similar character, showing
that no statute is valid except in the Ian
guage as it passed the twoahouses of a
legislative body. He demonstrated be-
yond dispute that the refunding act Of
1870 was changed after it passed the two
houses and was signed by the president,
and is therefore published in the printed
statutes different from the real act Of
congress. Consequently the LAWS void
as to the construction generally placed
upon it and the four per cent bonds of the
United States, referred to.ilr that portion
of Mr.. Plumbs speech published last
week, are now and have been, redeemable
for twenty years or more. This, in spite
OF the fact that the present administra
is paying a premium for their redemp-
ton, and notwithstanding the fact that
the democrats as well us the republicans
have been howling for two years or more,
for the want of something to do with the
surplus in the United States treasury.
After submitting innumerable preced-
ents in support of his position. Mr.. Plumb
continued as follows:
Mr.. Chairman, the decisions of courts
of the highest resort, both in this coun-
try and England, on this question are all
in one direction, and all unite in bringing
us to the conclusion that the law as it
stands on the records of congress is the
law, and must be our rule Of action as
long as it stands there. No accepted
rule of Interpretation will permit us to
go elsewhere than the words used to
ascertain what the law means.
Vattel lays down in his first rule of in
depreciation for treaties and statutes the
following:
1.-The first general maxim is that it is
not permitted to interpret what was no
need of Interpretation. When an act is
conceived in clear and concise terms,
when the sense is manifest and leads to
nothing absurd, there can be no reason to
refuse the sense which this act naturally
presents. To go elsewhere in order to re-
strain or extinguish it is to endavor to
elude it"
And this rule is adopted by the United
States supreme court in United States rs.
Fisher q Cranch 358.) Puffendorf says:
''As for words, the rule is, unless there
be reasonable objection against it, they
are to be understood in their proper and
most known signification, not so much
accoding to grammer as the general use
of them. .--
Rutherford's Rules of Interpretation de-
clares that -u
Words are the common signs that
mankind make use of to declare their in
tention to one another; and when the
words of man express his meaning
plainly. distinctly and perfectly, we have
no occasion to have recourse to any other
means of Interpretation.
The American rule is:
Whether courts are interpreting an
agreement between parties, d statute, or
constitution, the thing to seek is the
thought which it expresses. To ascer-
tain this the first resort in all cases is to
the natural significance Of the words en-
ployed in the order and grammatical ar
rangement in which they stand, If thus
regarded the words embUdy a definite
meaning which involves no abs,1rditv
and no contradiction between different
parts of the same writing, then that
meaning apparent upon the fact of the