The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-08-02

drafted. in the nrst Instance. by men who
are Ignorant not orly OF the rules OF con-
struction. but OF the state Of legislation
on the subject to which the bin IL Intended
for the inaccursci s appearing in the Bills
as presented In the first instance. AZ IL like
wise true that all bills. before they are en-
of experienced committees. always headed
by able and experienced lawyers. who could.
IL they would. make them meet these rules
OF construction, always In criminal cases
one to which the court is now addressing
itself there Is no excuse. 1t Is well enough
for ns TO sustain By hs
Legislature through What these iaymen
are pleased TO denomiPate technicslitiss,
liberties should be protected BY the integ-
rity Of the courts by holding strict con-
struction In passing upon the provisions OF
criminal enactments. thus rendering the
form. than that a species OF careiessness
and looseness or OF Ignorance. In many
cases. be upheld In legislators who have
more. it is feared. the interests Of private
concerns or sections. and too often some
party advantage "a , or other rather than the
are sent and sworn 10 represent. and X
the public will. and il Is right they should.
reSuated and restrained ' fbe one m n1u' send
representatives 10 make their laws with
both the capacity and integrity to draft
when properly drafted. and until this ID
done let no man censure courts of Justice
for striking down in effect the provisions
OF oasv law AZ AT, attempted II may speak gsnsr-'
by penal clause, without which a law
is nothing, and falling In which II Is equally
ase amoansina s To suoare 81 an IN
our own State, OF valid penal clauses; and
II Is or vastly more Importance to the pub
or this law, that the courts should content
themselves with taking the laws from the
LEGISLATURE as they find them on the stat
ute DOCKS and apply 10 them these plan
and well-established rules OF statutory con-
struction, and that these laws should stand
or fall by them. and reliable. stable sys-
tenn OF Jurisprudence shoe be thus built
up and maintained in it's Itegrity than
that they should take every UNCONSCIOUS
mass and tumble OF ambiguity and m.sap-
Interpretation and construction. words and
phrases with meaning which the plain read
ing OF the law will not bear. and thus usurp
lawmaking as well as a law-.nterpreting
and administering branch OF the govern
ment.
DOESN'T THINK WELL OF THE LAW.
That there is a demand throughout the
State OF Indiana for better regulation OF
the liquor traffic in the State entitled 10 a
popular demand. will be admitted by even
the better class engaged In that business.
but that this would be done by false or
strained construction by the courts In the
absence of square-shouidered, honest ef-
fort on the part of the lawmakirg power
in the discharge OF its function no wise,
well-mnded citizen will claim.
"Attributing the defects In the law. rem.
oerlng its Interpretation and enforcemene
In many respects at least doubtful TO ig-
norance rather than TO any improper pur-
pose. am nevertheless inclined to the opin-
ION that the law will not stand in the his
tory Of legislation in Indiana, rhetorically
speaking. as model of excellence.
The common form of penalty clause
adopted, not only in our State. but in almost
every State in the Union. and which could
have been before the eyes of the craftsmen
or this bill, and which was as familiar, even
TO. the clerk who enrolled IL. as the Lords
prayer ought to be to every one: Upon con-
viction for the violation of any of the pro-
visions Of this or either Of the foregoing
sections etc. This penalty clause is In vio-
laticn OF every precedent, no one in this
State or In any other State having been
ton of the violation of this or , either Of
the foregoing sections, etc. II Is not the
purpose OF the court here TO inquire what
may have been the intention of the Legis-
lature in its attempt to provide a penalty
for the law IL deemed necessary TO enact.
but 1t Is only necessary for the court to
than see what the Legislature has actually
said II is a plain rule of construction that
where there is no ambiguity Ira the words
there is no room for construction. The case
must be a strong one. indeed, says an au-
thority, which would justify the court in
departing from the plain meaning OF words.
especially in penal act In search OF an In
tentfon which the words themselves do not
suggest but even IL the words Of the stat
ute, says another authority. are capable
of two constructions. one which would,
while the other would not. make an act
criminal, then the one which would not 10
to be taken as the true construction. The
court cannot put into the act language
which the Legislature did not itself put In :
II cannot change the evident meaning by
inserting even an omitted punctuation. or
supply one, but must take the act N 10
and interpret II, and IL the act as II is here
written does not express the legislative In
tent. then all the courts can do. In the lam
guage Of an eminent comedian. Is to say TO
the Legislature. Come again.. and II the
people send the same men who made the
first blunder, a second will be theirs, and
not that Of the men whom they send. ana
whether there shall be second blunder or
no. neither the first nor second must be
charged to the courts. This law. in my
judgment. has no penalty for an onenso
under either OF the sections I'm controversy
here unless the indictment charges viola
ton of the whole section. and neither the
counts In the first indictment. nor does the
second indictment charge violation or the
whole Of any section, but simply one clause
OF each section. For this reason the motion
to quash should be sustained. The motions
are sustained and exceptions given.