it, this would not bind the interest of third persons in that land, because they are not strictly parties to the act, but strangers; and it would be manifest injustice that the statute should affect This rule as to limiting the operation of private statutes, is adopted by the Courts of the United States of America.a

Another difference has prevailed in England with regard to offering these different statutes in evidence. The printed statute book has been at all times admitted as evidence of a public statute of Parliament, not as an authentic copy of the record itself, but as (so it is gravely said) hints of that which is supposed to be lodged in every man's mind already. b And now by the statute 41 Geo. 3 Ch. 90, § 9, made for the better and more effectual proof of the statute law, it has been enacted that the copies of the statutes of Great Britain and Ireland prior to the Union, printed by the printer duly authorized, shall be received as conclusive evidence of the several statutes in the courts of either kingdom. But as we have before stated, a private act may contain clauses of a public nature; and then, the act, so far as those are concerned, is to be regarded as a public act.c The public are not generally considered as affected by the contents of a private act; and facts recited in the preamble of a private act, is not proof of those facts as against a stranger, a third party, or the public.

The regular proof of private acts of Parliament, is by an examined copy compared with the original in the Parliament office at Westminster.d But great inconvenience having been found to result from the necessity of such strict proof, a special clause has now, usually been inserted, providing that the act shall be deemed public, or providing that they should be printed by the King's printer, and that a copy so printed, shall be admitted as evidence of the act. In such cases, a copy purporting to be printed by the King's printer, will be admissible in evidence; it is not necessary to prove that the act was printed at the King's printers.e

Where the copy of an act is incorrect, the court will be gov erned by the Parliament Roll.ƒ

It should also be remarked, that there is a difference between proving private acts to a jury, and proving them on the issue of

a Kent's Comm. on American Law, vol. 1, 428. b Gilbert's Ev. 10.

d Phil. Ev. 306.

e 2 Phil. Ev. 129, R. v. Shaw. 12, East. R. 179. f Rex v. Jeffrie, 1 Str. 446.

CR. v. Utterby, 2 Phil. Ev. 127. NOTE 5.-Every subject of a government, is, in judgment of law, privy to the making of a public statute, and is supposed to know them. The passing of a public legislative act, is a public proceeding in all its stages, and when it is passed, it is in contemplation of law, the act of the whole body of the State. But recitals, even in a public act are not conclusive evidence of the facts therein stated. 2 Phil. ev. 272.

nul tiel record, which never goes to a jury; nothing less than an Exemplification under the Great Seal being sufficient in the latter

case.

And so much for the division of statutes into public and private acts, with their respective incidents.

Statutes are either declaratory of the common law, or remedial of some defects therein.a Declaratory statutes are generally introductory of a new law; remedial statutes, are generally mentioned in contradistinction to penal statutes. In the construction of remedial statutes, three points are to be considered. 1st, the old law, 2d, the mischief, and 3d the remedy. That is, 1st, how the common law stood at the time of the making of the act; 2d, what the mischief was for which the common law did not provide, and 3d, what remedy the statute hath provided to cure this mischief. And it is the duty of Judges, so to construe the act, as to suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy.b

The authentication of our national statutes is now declared by an act of Congress, passed August 8, 1846, (Statutes at Large, Vol. 9, 75); by which it is enacted, that the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little & Brown, shall be competent evidence of the several public and private acts of Congress, and the several treaties therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity, and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.

By another act of congress, passed May 26, 1790, (1 Statutes at Large, Vol. 1, 122,) it is declared, that the acts of the legislatures of the several States shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective States affixed thereto. Courts will presume that the person who affixed the seal had authority to do so.c

But these authentications, so far as they relate to the courts of the United States, refer only to public statutes. Private statutes, and laws, and special proceedings, are governed by a different rule. They are matters of fact, to be proved as such in the ordinary manner. d

An act of a State legislature, which contains a provision declaring it a public act, must be noticed by the courts of the United States without being specially pleaded,e otherwise not.

a 1 Black. Wm. 86, R. 22.

c United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392;

d Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Peters 617.

b Co. Litt. 11, 42.

Same v. Johnson 4 Dallas, 412, 416.

• Beatty v Knowler, 4 Pet. 152; Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 232.

Statutes and edicts of foreign countries must be produced in evidence.a If it does not appear that foreign laws in question were in writing as public edicts or statutes, they may be proved by parol.b

A copy of the Civil Code of France, presented to the Supreme Court of the United States with this endorsement: "Le Garde des Sceaux de France a la Coeur Supreme Des Etats Unis," has been admited as evidence of the written laws of France.c The court held, that the endorsement was a sufficient authentication, inasmuch as it was given in reciprocation of a donation made by congress, to France, of the laws, resolutions and treaties of the United States.

In the State of New York, the Revised Statutes, d provide for the formalities of enacting laws by the legislature, the duty of the Secretary of State in certifying them, and indorsing on them the day of their passage, delivering such laws to the printer, and the time when it became a law; and if certified by the presiding officers of the senate and assembly to have been passed by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house, then the secretary shall add to his certificate the words, "by a twothird vote," and which certificate is made presumptive evidence of such fact. If not so certified, the presumption is that the act was not passed by two-thirds of the legislature. Each volume of laws printed and published for the State shall contain the certificate of the Secretary of State, to the effect, that the said volume was printed under his direction. And all laws passed by the legislature, so certified, may be read in evidence from the volumes so printed under the directions of the Secretary of State.

By the provisions of the Code of Procedure of this State (§ 426), it is enacted, that printed copies in volumes of statutes, Code, or other written laws, and of the proclamations, edicts, decrees and ordinances by the executive power of any State or territory, or foreign government, when printed in books or publications purporting or proved to have been published by the authority thereof, or proved to be commonly admitted as evidence of the existing

a Robinson v. Cliffon, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 1. c Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 401. b Livingston v. Maryland Ins. Co. 6 Cranch. 674

d1 Revised Statutes, Marg. p. 157, 158.

law in the courts and judicial tribunals of such State, territory, or government, shall be admitted by the courts and officers of this State, on all occasions, as presumptive evidence of such laws, proclamations, edicts, decrees and ordinances.

A similar provision has been adopted by a large proportion of the States of the union. It will hardly be useful to go through with an examination of the enactments of the different States in this respect. It may suffice to say, that before these statutes of comity were passed, and in those States where no similar statute has yet been enacted, both public and private statutes at common law, could be proved by the seal of the State, or country whose law is thus sought to be proved. a

These mutual provisions of statute, on the part of the national and State legislatures, are supposed to arise from mutual interest and utility, as a kind of courtesy and comity between States, and from a sense of the great inconveniences that would result from a contrary doctrine. This inconvenience creates a kind of moral and reciprocal necessity between independent States, to do justice to others, that justice may be done to them in return. Especially does this seem to be demanded between sovereign States, between whom commerce has introduced frequent and intimate relations of extensive intercourse.b The intimate union of these States, as members of the same great political family, mutually dependent on each other in various ways; the deep and vital interests which bind them so closely together, all recognizing one common sovereign; would naturally create a greater degree of comity and friendship than is felt between foreign nations. Therefore, these provisions of statute comity between States. It is more than doubtful, however, whether the courts, independent of statute provisions, could declare or establish a common law comity between independent States.

The law-making power of the United States, and of the several States, (as in most other civilized governments,) is vested in the legislatures or representatives of the people, in the manner pre

a Dougherty v. Snyder, 15 Searg & Rawle, 87; Story on Conft. of Laws, 530. A sworn copy is also admissible. Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 482; 15 S. & R. 87. Blanchard v. Russel, 13 Mass. 4; Story on Confl of L. § 25; Bank of Augusta 7. Earle, 13 Peters, 519.

scribed by their fundamental law. This power of enacting laws, is sometimes called the sovereign power, but it is not, as we have seen, absolute sovereign power, in every sense or meaning of the word sovereignty, when applied to the authority of legislation under American written constitutions. When applied to other States of the union in relation to each other; or to the national government in relation to foreign governments; so far as it concerns the question of independence, the legislative power may be called sovereign. So too under our improved system of government, limited by constitutional restrictions, when the legislature is acting upon subjects within its constitutional limits, it is possessed of power competent to regulate, control and direct the will of the whole and every subordinate member of the community; and in this respect it is believed it possesses absolute and unlimited power, incapable of being controlled.' Such an exercise of NOTE 6.-Sovereignty, as applied to States, imports the supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power by which any State is governed.*

*1 Black. Com. 49; 2 Dallas R. 471; Story on Const. § 207.

NOTE 7.-Courts are not at liberty to inquire into the proper exercise of power by the legislature, in a case where the latter have been acting within their constitutional limits. They are bound to presume that the legislatures have exercised the proper discretion. It is no part of the duty of the courts to enquire iuto the motives which actuated the legislature in the passage of a given act, though fraud and corruption be alleged. The courts have no right to impute to the legislature any other but public motives for their acts. In People v. Draper, 15 N. Y. R.545, the court said, "We are not made judges of the motives of the legislature, and the court will not usurp the inquisitorial office of inquiry into the bona fides of that Dody in discharging its duties." See also, The Sudbury and Erie R. R. Co. v. Cooper, 33 Penn. St. R. 282; Ex parte Newmann, 9 Cal. 503.

Fraud, in procuring an act of the legislature, either by means of fraudulent representations, or by concealment from that body of material facts, whether the act be public or private, cannot be impeached in the courts. Englishbee v. Helmuth, 7 N. Y. Legal Obs. 186. Nor can the courts, for the purpose of impeaching a statute, go behind the records to enquire into the regularity of the proceedings of the legislature in passing an act. The People v. Develin, 33 N. Y. R. 269, and authorities cited.

NOTE 8.-If a law bear upon its face the requisite authentication, it is presumed to have been passed by the necessary constitutional majority. The vote by which it passed cannot be enquired into. Falconer v. Campbell, 2 McLean R. 195; White v. How, 3 id. 111.

NOTE 9.-If an act be constitutional, and clothed with the forms of law, the courts cannot inquire into the motives of the members of the legislature in passing it. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch. 87.