proper remedies may be applied by the appropriate judgment, order or decree of the court. But this department can only interpret and apply the law as it exists. It can enact nothing to supply the deficiency of legislation. And when it has pronounced its final judgment or decree, its authority over the subject is at an end. What remains to be done then passes into the hands of the executive.

S 119. It is the duty of the executive department as such, to see that the law as ascertained and applied by the final order, decree or judgment of the court, is executed in accordance with such order, judgment, or decree. By the constitution of the United States it is made the duty of the President, as the executive head of the nation, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. (Art. 2, $ 3.)

$120. There are other duties and powers necessarily incident to a national government which arise out of the external relations sustained by it to other nations. These duties and powers are international in character; and may be imposed or conferred on such departments as the people in their sovereignty ordain. By the national constitution, the President, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, has power to make treaties, to nominate, and by the like advice and consent, to appoint embassadors and other public ministers and consuls. He is also made the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, &c. (Art. 2, § 2.)

$121. There are also other duties and powers pertaining to administration, which may be enjoined and conferred on either of the several departments, as shall seem most appropriate. By the constitution the President may nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint judges of the supreme court, and all other officers not otherwise provided for by the constitution. He has power to fill vacancies which occur during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which are to expire at the end of their next session. The constitution requires him to give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and to recommend to their consideration such measures as he judges to be necessary and expedient, &c. These may be denominated presidential duties and powers, &c.1

1 These are denominated presidential duties and powers, because they pertain to the office of president, not as a part of the exécutive duties of that office, bnt because they are specifically attached to it by the terms of the constitution.

$122. The government of the United States, as instituted by the people in the adoption of the national constitution, is a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; having supreme authority to legislate in respect to all matters pertaining to the permanence, security and prosperity of the nation; having supreme authority to determine the limits of its own jurisdictions and powers under the constitution and laws of the United States; and having supreme authority to carry into effect its own final judgments and decrees, anything in state constitutions and laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

$123. To this government of the United States is committed not only all the authority and power to be exercised in the administration of a supreme national government over the people composing the nation, but also the exercise of all national authority essential or necessary to the preservation of the sovereignty and independence of the nation among the nations of the earth; the constitution having clothed the government with ample powers to adjust and maintain international relations and rights.1

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

$124. The government of the United States is a constitutional government, deriving its existence and authority from the people. It is intrusted with the exercise of those powers which are expressly or impliedly granted in the constitution, and with no other. Hence it is a limited government; limited by the terms of the grant. Therefore, the powers of the national government are to be determined by ascertaining the meaning of the several provisions of the constitution, and their application to the subjects intended by the people.

$ 125. The meaning of the constitution, and its application to the subjects intended, must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as were

(See as to powers conferred upon congress, section eight, article one, of the constitu tion of the U.S.; as to the treaty making power, see art. 2, § 2; also as to the appointment of embassadors. Idem.)

understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. Therefore, in construing the constitution for the purpose of ascertaining the powers and duties of the national government, it becomes necessary first, to consider the rules by which its true meaning and application are to be ascertained and determined.1

$126. Construction and interpretation imply uncertainty, ambiguity. Therefore one of the first maxims in respect to interpretation is, that it is not allowable where there is no uncertainty as to the meaning of the language used. That no one shall interpret where interpretation is not needed. "When the deed is worded in clear and precise terms, when its meaning is evident and leads to no absurd conclusions, there can be no reason for refusing to admit the meaning which such deed naturally presents."

$127. In construing the constitution the end sought is, to ascertain the intention of the people, as expressed in the various provisions of that instrument. But that intention is presumed to be expressed in language appropriate for the purpose; therefore the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used, should control, unless a different meaning is inferable by comparing the provision with other parts of the instrument, or with what was the apparent intention of the people in that respect.3

$128. It is a fundamental rule in the interpretation

1 As a principle to be observed in the construction of treaties, or any other deed, Vattel says, (268), "the question is to discover what the contracting parties have agreed upon- to determine precisely, on any particular occasion, what has been promised and accepted: that is to say, not only what one of the parties intended to promise, but also what the other must reasonably and candidly have supposed to be promised to him, what has been sufliciently declared to him, and what must have influenced him in his acceptance. Every deed, therefore, and every treaty, must be interpreted by certain fixed rules, calculated to determine its meaning as naturally understood by the parties concerned at the time when the deed was drawn up and accepted."

2 (Vattel, 263.) "Where a law is plain and unambiguous, whether expressed in general or limited terms, there is no room left for construction." (Bartlet v. Morris, 9 Port., 260.) (See also 1 Bl. Com., p. 69, and Sharswood's note.)

"Words are the common signs that mankind make use of to declare their intention to one another, and when the words of a man express his meaning, plainly, distinctly and perfectly, we have no occasion to have recourse to any other means of interpretation." Rutherforth's Inst., B. 2, ch. 7, 2.

3 The construction or interpretation of a law consists in ascertaining the meaning or intention of the legislator as expressed therein, either from his words or from other conjecture, or both. Hence, interpretation is literal, rational, or mixed. It is literal when his meaning or intention is gathered from the words only, requiring reference to no other parts or subjects. It is rational when his words do not express perfectly his intention, and it becomes necessary to collect it from probable or rational conjectures only. It is mixed when the words, if rightly understood, would express the intention, but being themselves of doubtful meaning, it becomes necessary to have recourse to probable or rational conjecture to ascertain in what sense they were used. (Ruth. Inst., B. 2, ch. 7, 23.)

of instruments to construe them according to the natural meaning of the terms, and the intention of the parties. The intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, and the reason and spirit of the law.1

$129. While it is a fundamental rule in the interpretation of instruments to construe them according to the natural meaning of the words used, and the intention of the parties, this can be done only when such intention is expressed in language, which, both in words and construction, "is agreeable to common use, without atttending to etymological fancies or grammatical refinements."2

$130. Where a literal interpretation leaves the intention of the party or legislator obscure or doubtful, recourse must be had to construction, or rational interpretation; by which is meant, other signs of intention must be sought after, by referring to the context; or the subject matter; or the effects and consequences; or the reason and spirit of the instrument or law.3

11 Bl. Com., 59, 60: Story on Const., 400.

Says Blackstone, (1 Com., p. 59.")"The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effect and consequences, or the spirit and reason of the law." 1. Words are generally understood in their usual and most known signification. * * Terms of art or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade and science." 2. "If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context, with which it may be of singular use to compare a word or a sentence whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal or intricate:" as calling in the preamble to help construe the act; or a comparison of the act with other laws made by the same legislator, having some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point; as statutes in pari materia must be construed with reference to each other. (See Sharswood's Blackstone, 1 Vol. p. 60 and notes.) 3. Words are always to be understood as having regard to the subject matter; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. 4. As to the effect and consequences, the rule is, if the words bear either none, or a very absurd signification when literally understood, we must deviate a little from the received sense. 5. But the most effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ought likewise to cease. (See 1 Bl. Com., p. 60, 61; 3 Maule & Selwyn, 510; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters, 661; The Emily & Caroline, 9 Wheat., 388; (see also Sharswood's note, 1 Bl. Com., p. 60.)

Ruth. Inst., B. 2, ch. 7, 24. "If the words and the construction of a writing are clear and precise, we scarce call it interpretation to collect the intention of the writer from them. But the definition of interpretation will best inform us whether it is to be called by this name or not. Interpretation consists in collecting the intention of a man from the outward signs that he makes use of to declare his intention; it must therefore certainly be one branch of interpretation to collect his intention from his clear and precise words, as they lie before us." "The principal rule to be observed in literal interpretation, is to follow that sense in respect both of the words and of the construction, which is agreeable to common use, without attending to etymological fancies, or grammatical refinements." Idem.

3 Bl. Com., p. 59, and notes.

The construction of a law or instrument, implies the exercise of the rational faculties in exploring the intention of the maker through an examination of signs and indications so connected with the instrument construed, as to make

$131. When construction or rational interpretation is required, all doubtful words or expressions are to be taken in such a sense as will make them produce some effect, which is reasonable, and consistent with the general intention of the law-maker as expressed or necessarily implied in the law which is being construed.' $132. In the construction or rational interpretation of words or expressions of doubtful meaning in a law, such an interpretation must be given to them as will be consistent with the spirit and reason thereof: that is, with the end which the law-maker had in view. since the reason of a law consists in the end sought to be obtained by the law-maker, or the effect intended to be produced, such meaning should be given to doubtful words, if possible, as would tend to produce such result.2

For

$133. There are numerous circumstances attending a law which may help to ascertain the meaning of ambiguous words or expressions used by the legislator. But these circumstances by which to explain doubtful writings, laws, &c., must be shown to have immediate connection with the writing or law to be interpreted thereby.3

it clear that the same or a similar intention pervaded the whole. If it be a contract that requires construction, we must ascertain as far as possible the common intention of the parties; as well the understanding of him who accepts, as of him who made the instrument; for it was their common understanding and assent that made the agreement.

1 (Rutherforth's Institutes, B. 2, ch. 7, 8. Grot., B. 2. ch. 16, 2 6.) "All doubtful words or expressions are to be taken in such a sense as will make them produce some effect; that is, they are to be so construed as to give them some meaning, for to take them in any sense that will make them produce no meaning is in reality to give them no meaning at all."

Ambiguous words or expressions are sometimes capable of two senses, and will produce some effect in either of the two. The rule then goes further, and says, that the effect must be a reasonable one. No other effect can be supposed to have been in the speaker's or writer's intention, because no man can be supposed to intend what is absurd or unreasonable." (Ruth. Inst., supra.)

"All civil laws ** are to be so construed where the words are of doubtful meaning, as to make them produce no other effect but what is consistent with reason, or with the law of nature. And when men live in a state of civil society, all doubtful words in any of their contracts with one another, are to be construed' in that sense which will produce an effect consistent with the civil laws of the society to which they belong." Idem.

"It may be laid down that the intention of the makers of a statute is to govern, even though the construction grounded upon such intention may appear to be contrary to the literal import of the words. Every technical rule as to the construction or form of particular terms, must yield to the clear expression of the paramount will of the legislature. Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters Rep., 661. In construing statutes, penal as well as others, an interpretation must never be adopted which will defeat the evident purpose of the law, if it will admit of any other reasonable construction." (The Emily and Caroline, 9 Wheat. 388. Sharswood's note, 1 Bl. Com., p. 60.)

3"Grotius divided these circumstances into two sorts, such as are connected with the writing in origin only, and such as are connected with it in place as well as origin. To these two we may add a third; for there are some circumstances which seem to be connected with a law or contract, &c., rather in time than either in origin or place." Ruth. Inst., B. 2 ch. 7, 89.