Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/497

 EICE V. MARTIN. 483 �held shall be the rules of decision as to the competency of witnesses in the courts of the United States in trials at coramon law, and in equity and ad- miralty." �The competency of Eice's testimony depend? upon the construction of the words "in all other respects, " etc., of the last clause, in its relar tion to the rest of the section. Do they refer to the proviso immedi- ately preceding, or to the main provision of the section, as limited by the proviso? Although the statute has been in some instances unc^nsciously changed in the Eevision, this was unintentional, as the revisera were requested to express in the Eevision, in a concise form, the statutes as they before stood ; and they, doabtless, iu all cases contem- plated carrying ont the intention as expressed in the statute anthorizing the revision. Where there is any ground for doubt as to the meaning of a provision of the Revised Statutes, an examinatioh of the statutes as they stood before the revision ■will often render the meaning clear. In all cases where the revision will bear a construction in harmony with the statutes as they before stood, that construction should be adopted. �The first act passed by congress touching this question was that 6f 1862, which is as follows: "The laws of the state in whioh the court shall be held shall be the rules of decision as to the competency of witnesses in the courts of the United States, in trials at common law, in equity and admiralty." 12 St. 588-9. This left the whole question to be determined by the state statute ; and, under this statute, on the assumption stated, Eice's testimony would be clearly inadmissible under the amended statute of Nevada before cited,^Rice being a party, and "the opposite party" being the "representative of a de- ceased person," etc. �The next statute of the, United States touching the question is found as an incongruous appendage to section 3 of an appropriation act of 1864, and reads as follows: �"Provided, that in the courts of the United States there shall be no exclu- sion of any witness on account of col or, nor in civil actions because he is a party to or interested in the issue tried." 13 St. 351. �This is broad in its terms, and without exception in the case of any party in interest. Clearly, under this, Eice could not be excluded; This provision limita the operation of the provisions of the act of 1862; so that the two sections, taken together, would read as fol- lows : �" The laws of the state in which the court is held shall be the rules of decision as to the competency of witnesses in the courts of the United States, in trials at common law, in eijuity, and admiralty: provided, that in the ��� �