Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-07-10
The M'RAE ACT.
Judge WellfoTd's Decision Discussed by "a
Member of the Richmond Bar.

Member Oh tht itlchfnonn
Tho Act = the Legislature acts 1s33-'9i.
page 49,. making husband and wife com
potent Witnesses for and against each
other in civil cases. known as the McRae
act has been declared by the learned
Judge Of the Circuit Court Of Richmond
city null and void.
Few questions Of evidence are Of more
Interest 20 the legal profession or affect
more htigants than this one. and so. al
though not OF counsel in the case in
which the ruling above mentioned was
made send you the reasons which have
brought mo to the conclusion cited at the
head OF THIS article.
The constitutional provision. Article v.
section 10. l. as follows. No law shall
embrace more than one object. which
shall be expressed In its title. nor shall
Iny law be revived or amended with re-
ference 20 It's title, but the act revived
10 the section amended shall be rc-enact-
O. and published at length"
10 is only with the latter clause Of the
above section that We are concerned: as
% seems TO b. admitted that the title Of
the act. which embraces only civil
cases" prccludes the validity of the
Criminal Provision" Mr.. McRae's let
ter. published in the Dispatch Of the --
day oi June. shows the history of the
title " the act
The question is then: !. Whether the
act is in conflict with the constitutional
clause cited. g. Does the want Of the
rtuealing-Cldusc Nitiate It? 3. Does the
faiiur. Of part render the whole act void?
]. An examination of the act, ana OF
tAe law a. 10 stood piior thereto is likely
g. show that the act neither revives nor
amends the Law in The sense used by the
Constitution.
H. Anderson against The Common
wealth. is Graf. page 800 Judge Joynes,
iu passing upon this provision Of the
Constitution (Which f. the same as section
j. of article ~. Of the Alexandria Consti-
tul'uJ says. a subsequent statute may
b. Inconsistent with part of a former
statute and 50 operate as a repeal OF
that part by implication; or II may not
De- wholly Inconsistent with any part OF
its former law 90 as TO repeal It. but
10 may operate TO modify the cOnstruc-
ton and eject OF the former law In all
such cases the subsequent law has the
effect Of an amendment Of the former
lw. bat such cases are not affected by
tbs provision Of the Constitution"
Can II be said in the light Of this de-
C.s'.l that tn act under discussion IL
such an amendment Of the former law
with reference 10 its title" as makes II
obnoxious 10 the constitutional provision?
The reason Of the provision is apparent.
The mischief designed 10 be rcmedied
WIS the enactment OF amendatory
statutes in terms 80 blind that Legislators
Themselves were deceived in regard 10
their eaect. aud the public from the difh-
"a
ton aud comparison failed 10 b. appraised
o. the changes made IN the laws. An
e.. tlIatOIy &ct, which purported 10
aneui or.. certain words or TO substitute
one p'rase for another IN an act or sec
t.n wl.ln was only referred TO but not
published 81 well calculated 10 mislead
tie CT. Jess 40 to it, feet. and Was, per-
,. Fps. ..metlmes dr, in that form Tor
e.. express purpose. Endless confusion
Wa t.Is introduced into the law, and
tine Constitution wisely prohibited such
legislation
Nc ore fortunate IN having the con-
a''lcNou 0f ole OF the greatest authori-
t.s upon This very question. For Judge
Cooley in ns work on constitutional
limitations. 40 page -. after noting the
d vision o. tar Virginia Constitution
t.f before us. and citing the authority
...Iftf4t fANrs II n4tDNAA Nv w q 80
t.. .fatutes which amend others by i'm
= .Yn are not within thls provision;
Gnu 10 .- not essential that they even refer
DO tLr acts or sections which by implica-
ton ily amend. But repeats by impl-
c-lua are not favored: and the re2ug-
nancy between two statutes should be
t.ry clear % warrant a court in holding
TAT the latter Ia time repeats the other.
when II does not N terms purport 70 do
30"
There Is no que2tion as 10 the re-
pupnahcy OF the McRae act and the law
a. % stood before.
REPEAL BY IMPLICATION
2 II has long been the rule In Virginia
that though repeals by implication are
never favored by courts II
two laws are absolutely In opposition 10
each other. then, since the latter VIII pre-
,sil. the former must Of necessity be
Considered az being altered. See warder
W. Arch. 2 Wash. page S9s. Nor has
this rule been changed Ia the hundred
years Of our Juifspridence. for in the
care OF Holiday vs.. Tho Auditor II Va.
gage az. Judge Lewis cites with appro-
val Judge Aoncure's opinion upon this
subject rendered In the case OF Fox vs.
The Commonwealth. 10 Graf, page s.
~hsrssn he saws IN comparing two acts: