this sublonary state of existence, the views of the wisest head are but limited and indistinct. Ours is but the twilight of knowledge, and he who has the strongest mental eye has, by any method of reasoning he may adopt, only a little better chance of seeing matters as they are disposed by the Supreme Arbiter of all things. Laws were made for the better government of societies; particularly for the convenience and happiness of the community on whom they were intended to operate. Where laws are not local in their nature, operate indiscriminately on the individuals of whom such society is composed, and where civil rights are continually growing out of them and men have for a considerable time immediately succeeding the introduction of these laws, thought and acted alike in relation to them, we may safely adopt the general sense of those concerned, as the most exceptionable ground of decision. In this we cannot err. Individuals may make mistakes in selecling their means of happiness in their process of reasoning, but societies rarely found to have settled down in principle unappropriate to their situation.
Judge Depends on Others' Rulings.
The first utensil a lawyer lays hold of in order to ascertain the law arising in any case is the concurrantopinion of judges or sages of the law who have preceded him; he applies it in preference to any reasoning of his own, independent of experience which he has had, in which the experience of the wisest men in all countries and ages shows that he is continually subject to err. In the absence of evidence of this kind as to what shall be considered a ground of interpretation, courts have adopted the general sense of society for a length of time immediately after the enactment of a law, as much more safe and infallible than theoretic reasoning in all eases where the words of a law are not directly and flatly opposed to such consideration. And even this barrier has been broken down by long and inveterate habits. If the individuals of whom society is composed are generally satisfied with an erroneous construction of a statute and have evinced that satisfaction by conforming their actions to it, who has a right to find fault? Surely not the courts. Legal constructions have always in view the happiness of the people. If they are content and happy in the practical construction of any statute, the end is attained.
That is referring, your honor, to a statute that had been for some time the law and a practice had grown up under this particular statute. Now, your honor, a law is passed in Tennessce and it applies to all people who are within the jurisdictional limits of this sovereign state. A law is passed in Kentucky, in Ohio and in New York and it applies to all who are within the boundaries of its jurisdiction.
This Union, composed of different states, necessarily the different states have different laws which are shaped and formed so as to meet the needs, the conveniences and the notions of the people who dwell within each jurisdiction. This law, which is in test at bar, was passed by the Tennessee legislature. It is a Tennessee law, and it applied to all within the boundaries of this commonwealth, the same as it would apply were it the law of any other state to the boundaries of that commonwealth.
This rule of construction says that the court has in mind always the happiness and contentment of the people. What people? All the people upon whom this law is restrictive, upon whom this law may be enforced, which conforms with this nation. The legislature. It was formed and passed by the legislature, because they thought they saw a need for it. And who, forsooth, may interfere?
What is the Thing?
What is that, that is back of this law? What is this thing that comes here to strike within the bounds of this jurisdiction, and to tell the people of this commonwealth that
