Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-07-07

tho oath IN no taken by ,ne printer OF the
baI,ots prescribed By section OF the
aot-"that | will at once destroy all I'M
perfect and perfect Impressions
Literally construed II would result IN
an absurdlty as palpable ms any, perhaps,
that ever existed. Section OF the ACT
reouires the electoral boards OF the seve-
raj counties and cities To cause TO ne
prlnted a number OF ballots equal To twice
The entire registered vote OF their re
spectlye counties and cities. the e1ac.
nuulbsr thus to be printed Is specimen
I'm the oath (section 81 to be TAKEN "
the printer. and that number-ht','itr
more nor leas-Is TO be turned over by MN
10 the Electoral Board. And yet, IN ths
oath he has taken. literally con trued.
every ballot-not only an Imperfect put
also perfect impression thereot-is NJ
once. 10 10 DESTROYED by him, a more
palpable absurdity than this couid ro'
well be conceived OF.
In the construction of statutes, the
urinary object Is to get at the legislative
intent. and when that IS ascar' ain,d
effect must be given to It, unless II II
bevond the legislative power. The eNposi-
tor first looks at the language employed
not only To the particular expressions
drawn I'm the question. but to the WhoIe'
and the effect Is to de1uce the intention
from the statute considered as "note
and in all its parts Nobody. | pres me-
Will doubt the s0undncss OF THIS RUE,
which. indeed. Is universally conceiei
bv judicial expositors II 4 construction
lesds 10 absurd consequences, and en-
other which Is reasonable is possible. the
former is to be rejected and the latter
adopted
Applying these principles, can any man
In his senses reach the conclusion that
the LEGISLATURE intended by section oi
the act that all the bailots-"pertect
as well as Imperfect impression
should be destroyed by the printer 10
state the question is to answer II IN the
negative.
What then. was the intent? statute.
like any other instrument should be so
construed. If possible. ut res Valeat ma2's
nuam pereat-that some effect should he
given 10 IL rather than none Looking
then TO the whole Of this act in all IT'S
parts and to its recognized object, 1t -
as plain TO my mind as anything cam oe
that the legislative intent was that the
printer should destroy, not all the Dallots
he printed. but only such as are '1mper-
feet" and so many Of those which are
perfect as exceed the number required
10 be turned over by him 10 the Electoral
Board. I'm my judgment there is no other
reasonable construction. IT Is upfortu-
nate that the language as TO the daatruc-
ton Of the ballots by the printer
should not have been more restrictive
and specific. as it might and ought TO
have been; but. ] think. under the well
settled rules Of construction. The defect
is not fatal.
A cas-, may be within the letter of the
law ard yet not within its meaning, and
vice versa. \ forcible Illustration Of this
principla may he found I'm Church OF the
Holy Trinity ". United states CB l.
$. $50. valuable case 90 the pro-
fesson. which see.
>. Section requires the electoral boards
to cause the ballots 10 be- printed within
thirty days preceding the election. Is IT
meant by this that the printing must
BE- -complcted-thlrt days before the
election. as is contendvd by some? or
that It must be done some time during -
"within"-the thirty days preceding the
election Plainly the latter is the mean
ing. This section. however. must be con-
strued in connection with section :, which
requires the candidates To give notice
Of their candidacy at least twenty days
before the election. Ii must have been
contemplated that the candidates shall
have until the twentieth day preceding
the election TO give the notice. ana that
the printing should be done in the IN
terlm-that. is on some day or days be-
tween the limit fixed for giving the mo-
tice and the day Of election This would
cut down the time for the printing to
the twenty days next preceding the cleo
ton. during or within" which-on any
one or more of these days-the printing
may be done. | am of opinion that
this Is the proper construction.
In what | have written | have not gone
beyond the two questions on which you
asked my opinion. Very truly. etc
E. c. BURKS.