The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-28


| instrument is adopted as who'll. aid
| clause which standing by Itself might
seem of doubtful import. may yet he
made plain by comparison WITH Other
clauses or portions of the same law. IT
/ is therefore a rule of construction that
| the whole Is 10 be examined with view
| 10 arriving at the true intention Of each
! part.
Effect is to be given. if possible. TO
| the whole instrument and to every sea-
/ ton and clause. If different portions
seem to conflict the courts must harnlo-
| nize them if practicable. and lean in IA
vor Of 4 construction which will render
| every word operative. rather than one
| which VIII make some idle and nucatory.
| This rule is especially applicable to
| written constitutions in which the peo-
| pie will be presumed to have expressed
| themselves in careful and measured
| terms, corresponding with the immense
| Importance Of the powers delegated, leav-
| ing as little as possible to implication.
Another rule of construction is that
| when the constitution defines the cir
cumstances, under which a right may be
| exercised the specification is
an implied prohibition against legisia-
| tive interference to add to the ,ondi-
| tons" PIP. 81, Ga.
| Again this author says: "We have
elsewhere expressed the opinion that
statute cannot be declared void because
opposed to n supposed general intent or
spirit. which, il is thought pervades or
lies concealed in the Constitution, bCt
wholly unexpressed. or because, in the
opinion OF the court, it violates funda-
mental rights or principles, if it was
passed in the exercise of Il power which
the constitution confers. Still less will
the injustice of Il constitutional provis-
! ion authorize the courts to disregard it,
or indirectly to annul it by constituting it
away 1t is quite possible that the pep
PIE may. under the influence u tenn
porary prejudice, or mistaken sew OF
public policy, incorporate prov sions IN
their charter Of government infringing
upon the right OF the individual man
or upon principles that ought - DE re.
garded as sacred and fundamental III
a republican government, and quite pos
sible also that obnoxious classes may
| be unjustly disfranchised. The rcma1y
! for such injustice must rest with Ike
] people themselves through an amend
ment of their work when better corn-
| sells prevail. Such provisions When free
struction as any other" PIP -, 81.
The object of construction as applied
to written constitution is to give eff
feet to the intent of the people ID ;,d,,t
ing it. In the case Of all written law
it is the intent of the law maker that
it is to be enforced. BUT THIS IN
! TENT Is TO BE FOUND II THE
/ INSTRUMENT ITSELF. 1t Is 10 re
presumed that language has been en-
! ployed with sufficient precision ~ con
vey it, 3 ? Where Il law is plan
and unam!iguous whether it be expressed
in general or limited terms, he Ic:,isl2
ture should be intended to incal What
they have plainly expressed, an,i con-
seqnently no room Is left Cor consiruc-
ton. Possible or even probable mean
ings when ope is plainly declared IN the
instrument itself, the courts are not n
liberty 10 search for elsewhere. Wheth-
or we are considering an agreement be-
tween parties 4 statute, or constitu-
ton. with Il view to its Interpretation,
: the thing which we are to seek is the
thought which it expresses. 8
that which the words declare is the
meaning Of the instrument. and neither
courts nor legislatures have the right -
| add TO or to take away from that mean
| ing
| SUPREME COURTS LANGUAGE.
! Now the Supreme Court Of the United
! States have stated the rules in as strong.
| if not stronger, language than Judge Coo
| ley. In Lake County VS.. Rollins, 100
! L. S., at page GO, it is said: why not
assume that the trainers of the constitu
ton, and the people who voted it into
! existence, meant exactly what it says:
At the first glance its reading produces
no impression Of doubt as to the mean
ing. 1t seems all sufficiently plain: and
III such case there is well settled rule
which we must observe. THE OB-
JECT OF CONSTRUCTION APPLE
ED TO a CONSTITUTION is TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THE INTENT OF
its trainers, and Of the people in adopt
ing it. THIS INTENT is TO IT
! SELF: and when the text of consti-
tutional provision is not ambiguous, the
courts, in giving construction thereto.
are not at liberty TO search for its
meaning beyond the instrument.
ITO get at the thought or meaning, ex-
I pressed Ill Il statute. a contract or Il
constitution. the first resort an all cases,
is to the natural Specification of the
words, In the order of grammatical ar
rangement i'll which the trainers of the
instrument have placed them. If the
words involve no absurdity nor any
contradiction of other parts Of the in
strument, then that meaning, apparent
| on the face of the instrument, must be
accepted, and neither the courts nor the
Legislature have the right to add to it
on take from it. SO, also, where n law
is expressed in plain and unambiguous
| terms, whether those terms are general
or limited, the Legislature should be
understood to mean what they have plain
| ~ expressed. and consequently no room is
left for construction. There is even
| stronger reason for adhering to this
rule in tho case Of a Constitution than
| in that of 4 statute. since the latter is
| passed by deliberative body of small
numbers, a large proportion of whose
! members are more or less con-
versant with the niceties of construct
| ton and discrimination, and fuller
opportunity exists for attention and re-
vision of such character. while consti'
tutions are framed by the votes Of
: h., al, IN, he, n TO