Page:Dakota Territory Reports.djvu/81

 Indeed, the rule extends further than is necessary in its application to this case. "If a repealing statute, and a part of the original statute, be repealed by a subsequent act, the residue of the original statute is revived." 9 B. and C, 354; if an act of parliament be revived, all acts explanatory of that so revived, are revived also; 2 Burr, 747.

The denial of the legal force of the statute of 1862-3, was based upon other reasons which we will proceed to consider.

Section 2 of the Act of 1872-3 provides, "That from and after the passage and approval of this act, the proceedings, practice and pleadings in the District Courts of this Territory, in criminal cases, shall be in accordance with the proceedings, practice and pleadings of the common law, except where the same is otherwise expressly regulated by law."

It was contended on behalf of the People, that this section qualified the unlimited repeal of the Act of 1868-9, fixed by the first section, and introduced the common law as a rule of practice in lieu of all statute law. In other words, it is contended that these words manifest an intention in the legislature not to revive the Act of 1862-3, but to adopt the common law in lieu of it.

Such is not the meaning of this section. In construing a statute, all the elementary writers say, it must if possible be so construed as to give an intelligent meaning to all the words of such statute, and any construction which necessitates the rejection, or which renders meaningless some words, and especially words to which some obvious meaning was intended, is presumptively erroneous.

When the legislature adopted the common law as the rule of practice in this Territory, "except where the same is otherwise expressly regulated by law," it obviously meant something by these words, and so to construe the act as to render such words meaningless is a violation of the plainest principles of legal construction, whether of statutes or any other documents.

An examination of the criminal statutes of the Territory show, that if these words—except where the same is otherwise expressly regulated by law—do not refer to the Act of 1862-3,