scope of their constitutional power, the courts cannot pronounce it void, merely because, in their judgment, it is contrary to the principles of natural justice; 17 and natural equity will not control in case of uncertainty, although where there is ambiguity the presumption exists that the legislature intended to do equity.18 So constitutional restrictions and not natural justice and equity are the test of the validity of statutes. 19 And where a particular construction of a statute will occasion great inconvenience, or produce inequality and injustice, that view is not to be favored if another and more reasonable interpretation is present in the statute.20 So in case the legislature has the constitutional power to enact a given law, and it properly frames an act clearly expressing its legal intent, it is the duty of the court to construe that act so as to effectuate its terms. The argument based on the inconvenience which may result is out of place under such circumstances.21 Again, that different sections of the statute may subject different classes of corporations to control and result in some inconvenience is not a sufficient reason for departure from the plain intent evidenced by the language used; 22 but there is a presumption against a construction which would render a statute ineffective or inefficient, or which would cause grave public injury or even inconvenience.23 An act of Congress otherwise valid is not unconstitutional because the motive in enacting it was to secure certain advantages for conditions of labor not

17 Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. (3 U. S.) 386, 1 L. ed. 648, per Irdell, J.

Where the argument of impossibility of applying a law to a particular matter amounts to no more than that it would result in an inconvenience which may readily be avoided, and

18 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Cincinnati, W. & M. R. Co., 116 Ind. 578, 19 N. E. 440. 19 Viemeister v. White, 84 N. Y. the intention of the legislature is Supp. 712, 88 App. Div. 44.

20 Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 20 Sup. Ct. 747, 44 L. ed. 969.

21 State v. Rat Portage Lumber Co. (Minn., 1908), 115 N. W. 162.

22 Home Building & Loan Assoc. v. Nolan, 21 Mont. 205, 53 Pac. 738.

reasonably clear under the statute, such argument is rather a matter for the legislative body than for the court. Ellis v. United States, 206 U. S. 246, 266, 267, per Moody, J., dissenting.

23 Bird v. United States, 187 U. S. 118, 47 L. ed. 100, 23 Sup. Ct. 42.

subject to the general control of Congress.24 And in testing the constitutionality of an act of Congress the court will confine itself to the power of Congress to pass the act and may not consider any real or imaginary evils arising from its execution; 25 nor will additions be made by construction to prevent apparent hardships; 26 and although the state of the statute law may operate injuriously at times the situation cannot be changed by the courts, but only by legislation.27 Again, the court will not limit the power of the State by declaring that because the judgment exercised by the legislature is unwise it amounts to a denial of the equal protection of the laws or deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law. 28

§ 262. Contemporaneous Construction-Extraneous Matters-History-Debates, etc.—The general rule is perfectly well settled that, where a statute is of doubtful meaning and susceptible upon its face of two constructions, the court may look into prior and contemporaneous acts, the reasons which induced the act in question, the mischiefs intended to be remedied, the extraneous circumstances, and the purpose intended to be accomplished by it, to determine the proper construction. But where the act is clear upon its face, and when standing alone it is fairly susceptible of but one construction, that construction must be given to it.29 Not only will the lawmaking body be presumed to know that which is commonly known

24 Ellis v. United States, 206 U. S. 246, 51 L. ed. 27 Sup. Ct. -.

25 Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463.

Consequences should not be considered. State, Harris, v. Scarboro, 110 N. C. 232, 14 S. E. 737.

That a failure of corporations to make annual reports is made by statute is made evidence of non-user when otherwise it would have been inadmissible evidence, does not invalidate the enactment. People v. Rose, 207 Ill. 352, 69 N. E. 762.

26 Cheyenne County V. Bent

County, 15 Colo. 320, 25 Pac. 508.

27 Caledonia Coal Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 432, 49 L. ed. 540, 25 Sup. Ct. 375.

28 Heath & Milligan Mfg. Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338.

29 Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414, 419, 421, 44 L. ed. 219, 20 Sup. Ct. 155; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, 27 L. ed. 812, 2 Sup. Ct. 832; Platt v. Union Pac. R. Co., 99 U. S. 48, 25 L. ed. 424. See Siemens v. Sellers, 123 U. S. 276, 8 Sup. Ct. 117, 31 L. ed. 153.

among men, but it will be presumed to have investigated and advised itself respecting the conditions made by it the subject of legislative enactment.30 It is also a familiar rule of interpretation that in the case of a doubtful or ambiguous law the contemporaneous construction of those charged with its execution, especially when it has long prevailed, is entitled to great weight and should not be disregarded or overturned except for cogent reasons, or unless it is clear that such construction is erroneous.31 The doctrine of contemporaneous legislative construction will also be considered in cases of doubt.32 And acquiescence by the people or governmental departments for a long period of time ought to settle the con

30 Eckerson v. City of Des Moines (Iowa, 1908), 115 N. W. 177, 187, per Bishop, J.

31 United States: United States v. Finnell, 185 U. S. 236, 46 L. ed. 890, 22 Sup. Ct. 633; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 35 L. ed. 363, 11 Sup. Ct. 699, aff'g 14 Sawy. 584, 595, 43 Fed. 196, 339; Heath v. Wallace, 138 U. S. 573, 11 Sup. Ct. 380, 34 L. ed. 1083; Meritt v. Cameron, 137 U. S. 42, 11 Sup. Ct. 174, 34 L. ed. 772; United States v. Johnston, 124 U. S. 236, 31 L. ed. 389, 8 Sup. Ct. 446; Brown v. United States, 113 U. S. 568, 28 L. ed. 1079, 5 Sup. Ct. 648; United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265, 25 L. ed. 322; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. (90 U. S.) 374, 23 L. ed. 47; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Sanders, 47 Fed. 604, aff'd 49 Fed. 129, 7 U. S. App. 47, 1 C. C. A.

192.

Arizona: See Copper Queen Consol. Min. Co. v. Board of Equalization (Ariz., 1906), 84 Pac. 511.

United

District of Columbia: States v. Bliss, 12 App. D. C. 485, 26 Wash. L. Rep. 293.

Kentucky: Harrison v. Commonwealth, 83 Ky. 162.

Minnesota: O'Connor v. Gertgens, 85 Minn. 481, 89 N. W. 866.

New York: People v. City of Buffalo, 84 N. Y. Supp. 434.

Washington: Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Hofins, 20 Wash. 272, 55 Pac. 54.

West Virginia: State v. Davis (W. Va., 1908), 60 S. E. 584.

Contemporaneous construction is a rule of interpretation, but it is not an absolute one and does not preclude an inquiry by the courts as to the original correctness of such construction. A custom of the government, however long continued by successive officers, must yield to the positive language of the statute. Houghton v. Payne, 194 U. S. 88, 48 L. ed. 888, 24 Sup. Ct. 590.

32 California: Burgoyne v. Supervisors, 5 Cal. 23.

Kentucky: Collins v. Henderson, 11 Bush (74 Ky.), 74.

Nevada: State v. Parkinson, 5

Nev. 17.

Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v.

Illinois: People, Neil, v. Knopf, Paine, 207 Pa. 45, 56 Atl. 317.

171 Ill. 191, 49 N. E. 424.

Wisconsin: Travelers' Ins. Co. v.

stitutionality of an act.33 But a construction by the legislative or executive departments will not be followed where it would override the obviously plain meaning of the enactment.34 The history of the statute or of the times may be considered, if necessary,35 but debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of a congressional enactment, although resort has been had to journals 37 and reports of committees in charge.38 A legislative exposition of a doubtful law, is the exercise of a judicial power, and if it interferes with no vested rights, impairs the obligation of no contract, and is not in conflict with the primary principles of our social compact, it is in itself harmless, and may be admitted to retroactive efficiency; but if rights have grown up under a law of somewhat ambiguous meaning, then it cannot interfere with them. The construction of the law belongs to the courts.39 When the executive department charged with the execution of a statute gives a construction

Fricke, 94 Wis. 258, 68 N. W. v. Reynolds, 94 Mo. App. 578, 68 S. 958. W. 588.

33 People, Neil, v. Knopf, 171 Ill. 191, 49 N. E. 424; Wallace v. Board of Equalization (Oreg., 1906), 86 Pac. 365. See Warren v. Board of Registration, 72 Mich. 398, 2 L. R. A. 203, 40 N. W. 553.

34 State, Pearson, v. Cornell, 54 Neb. 647, 75 N. W. 25. See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 45 L. ed. 1088, 21 Sup. Ct. 770.

35 United States: District of Columbia v. Washington Market Co., 108 U. S. 243, 27 L. ed. 714, 2 Sup. Ct.; United States v. Union Pac. Rd. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 23 L. ed. 224; Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. (44 U. S.) 9, 11 L. ed. 469; United States v. Colorado & N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 321.

Georgia: Western & A. R. Co. v. State (Ga.), 14 L. R. A. 438.

Missouri: Helton, Ex parte, 117 Mo. App. 609, 93 S. W. 913; Grimes

Ohio: Slinguff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621, 64 N. E. 574.

Washington: Scouten v. City of Whatcom, 33 Wash. 273, 74 Pac. 389.

Wisconsin: Brown v. Phillips, 71 Wis. 239, 36 N. W. 242.

36 United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc., 166 U. S. 290, 41 L. ed: 1007, 17 Sup. Ct. 540 (a case of railroads and contracts in restraint of trade). See Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. (44 U. S.) 9, 11 L. ed. 469; United States v. Oregon & C. R. Co., 57 Fed. 426.

37 Blake v. National Banks, 23 Wall. (90 U. S.) 307, 32 L. ed. 119.

38 United States v. Colorado & N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 321.

39 McLeod v. Burroughs, 9 Ga. 213. See also Spokane Fall & Northern Ry. Co. v. Stevens (Wash., 1908), 93 Pac. 927; Northern Ry. Co. v.

to it, and acts upon that construction for a series of years, the court looks with disfavor upon a change whereby parties who have contracted with the government on the faith of the old construction may be injured; especially when it is attempted to make the change retroactive, and to require from the contractor repayment of moneys paid to him under the former construction.40 A construction placed by the Attorney General upon a prohibitory statute as to trusts and combinations, giving it an extraterritorial effect, will not be adopted merely because thereafter the legislature rejected a proposed amendment limiting the operation to combinations within the State.41

42

§ 263. Policy of Government, of Legislative Body or of Law-Public Policy-General Principles of Law. -What is termed the policy of the government with reference to any particular legislation is too unstable a ground upon which to rest the judgment of the court in the interpretation of statutes.4 And where legislative grants of land for railroad aid are made and the statute is free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded in favor of a presumption as to the policy of the government.43 Nor will the policy of legislation be considered, as the question is one of the legislative power to enact.44 But it is held that some weight may be given to general considerations of public policy supposed to have influenced the legislature where the meaning is uncertain from the language used.45 And when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, a refusal to recognize its natural and obvious meaning may be justly regarded as indicating a purpose to change the law by judicial action, based upon some supposed policy

Snohomish County (Wash., 1908), 93
Pac. 924.

40 United States v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 142 U. S. 615, 35 L. ed. 1134, 12 Sup. Ct. 306.

41 State v. Lancashire F. Ins. Co., 66 Ark. 466, 51 S. W. 633, 45 L. R. A. 348, 28 Ins. L. J. 605

42 Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. (72 U. S.) 107, 18 L. ed. 518.

43 St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. Phelps, 137 U. S. 528, 11 Sup. Ct. 168, 34 L. ed. 767.

44 Eckerson v. City of Des Moines (Iowa, 1908), 115 N. W. 177. 45 Glass v. Cedar Rapids, 68 Iowa, 207.