Court Opinion

ID: 9544505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:56:20.126866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:06.992727
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE WEBBER, specially concurring: I concur in the result and in nearly everything which is said in the principal opinion. However, I take umbrage at the additional confusion added to the jambalaya which the reviewing courts nationwide have made out of the “shall-may” syndrome. For many years I have complained about the ad rem use of words (see Illinois National Insurance Co. v. Trainer (1971), 1 Ill. App. 3d 34, 37, 272 N.E.2d 58), and I find the same deficiency here. There is no necessity to resort to the fiction that sometimes — “may”—means—“shall”—and—sometimes — vice versa. The operative phrase in section 14 — 129 of the statute as emphasized in the principal opinion is “to the end that the System created by this Article may be paid or reimbursed.” This is a pure purpose clause. “To the end that” means “in order that.” (Webster’s Second New International Dictionary 843 (1959).) The same dictionary states that “in order to” means “for the purpose of.” Webster’s Second New International Dictionary 1716 (1959). In a purpose clause “may” is the proper usage and indicates the obligatory nature thereof. An instructive article on the subject appears in Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage 287 (2d ed. 1965): “[I]n order that is regularly followed by may and might; i.o.t. nothing may, or might, be forgotten. The use of the subjunctive without a modal auxiliary (i.o.t. nothing be forgotten) is archaic. In some contexts, but not in most, shall and should may pass instead of may and might (i.o.t. nothing should be forgotten) but certainly the second, and perhaps the first also, of the shall examples below is unidiomatic. The other examples, containing can and could, will and would, are undoubtedly wrong: The effort must be organized and continuous i.o.t. Palestine shall attract more and more of the race.! To influence her in her new adolescence i.o.t. we shall once more regain the respect and admiration we enjoyed under the old Russia./ It will conclude before lunchtime i.o.t. delegates can attend a mass meeting in London./ To supplement the work of the doctors on the panel i.o.t. every insured person in London will be able to obtain the very best medical attention./ If the duty had been left on wheat i.o.t. the farmer could have purchased the offals at a reasonable price ../ A special sign i.o.t. the motorist would be able to stop in time. These solecisms are all due to ANALOGY, in order that being followed by what could properly have followed so that. Although in order that has its uses, as the examples show, that or so that is less stiff and should be preferred when it will serve.” It follows that the statute is grammatically correct and need not be construed. It is mandatory by nature.