authorizing particular municipalities to contribute aid for such enterprises,— are, in this country, public acts. Here the tendency has been to enlarge the limits of public stat utes, and to bring within them all enactments of a general character, or which in any way affect the community at large.87

An act authorizing a named person to construct a dam of a particular description for the purpose of improving the navigation of a river is a public statute. Acts for the incorporation of banks have been held public by reason of provisions affecting the general public, and other corporations. A penal act is public;" and the defining of an offense in an act otherwise private renders it a public act." An act authorizing a foreign private corporation to do business, and providing that it shall have an office and place of business in the state where the law is passed, and that such corporation may then sue and be sued like a domestic corporation, is a public act. The distinction between public and private acts defined in the common law of England by

93

burg Canal v. Frye, 5 Me. 38; Att'y General v. Erie, etc. R. R. Co., 55 Mich. 21.

86 Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447, 26 L. Ed. 405. See Clark v. Janes ville, 10 Wis. 136.

87 Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447, 26 L. Ed. 405; Boyle, In re, 9 Wis. 264; Yellow R. Improv't Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 214; State v. Chambers, 93 N. C. 600; Price v. White, 27 Mo. 275; Bretz v. Mayor, etc., 6 Rob. 325; McLain v. Mayor, etc., 3 Daly, 32; West v. Blake, 4 Blackf. 234; Bevens v. Baxter, 23 Ark. 387; State v. Judges, 21 Ohio St. 1; Kerrigan v. Force, 9 Hun, 185; Wright v. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452.

Louisiana State Bank v. Flood, 3 Mart. (N. S.) 341; Bank of Commonwealth v. Spilman, 3 Dana, 150; Young v. Bank of Alexandria, 4 Cr. 384, 2 L. Ed. 655; Bank of Utica v. Smedes, 3 Cow. 634; Bank of Newberry v. Railroad Co., 9 Rich. 495.

90 Portsmouth Livery Co. v. Watson, 10 Mass. 91.

91 Burnham v. Acton, 35 How. Pr. 48.

92 Bacon's Abr., tit. Statutes, F.; Heridia v. Ayers, 12 Pick. 344; Burnham v. Webster, 5 Mass. 266; Young v. Bank of Alexandria, 4 Cr. 384, 2 L. Ed. 655; Rogers' Case, 2 Greenlf. 303; Rex v. Buggs, Skin.

88 Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 428. 667.

93 Fall Brook Coal Co. v. Lynch,

89 Smith v. Strong, 2 Hill, 241; 47 How. Pr. 520.

94

Blackstone is not quite the distinction recognized in this country. Here acts may be public though they are local and special, when they concern the public generally, though more particularly a local community or only a class of the general public - where they concern the class in distinction from the individual. Where a statute of a private nature is declared to be a public act, it will be treated as such and need not be pleaded nor proved. A statute amendatory of a public law is public. And where a general law recognized and amended a private or special law, it was held that the court would take judicial notice of the latter law.97 A private act may contain provisions of a public nature and such provisions need not be pleaded or proved.98

96

§ 322 (194). A private statute is one confined to a special Case,99 An act "to enable the Bishop of Canton to make a lease to A. B." for an exceptional period is a fair example of a private statute.' A statute enabling the local authorities of a particular city or county to raise money by tax for the payment of certain claims against it, or relieving a particular married woman by name of the disabilities of coverture;' acts authorizing the sale of property of minors and other persons under disability, are private. Acts for the mere

94 Commonwealth v. Worcester, 3 Pick. 473; Wales v. Belcher, id. 508; Bish. W. L., § 42c; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. 338.

95 Brookville Ins. Co. v. Records, 5 Blackf. 170; Beaty v. Knowler, 4 Pet. 152, 7 L. Ed. 813; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 232; Bacon's Abr., Statute, F. See Edenburgh R. R. v. Wauchope, 8 Cl. & F. 710; Rogers' Case, 2 Greenlf. 303; State v. Frazier, 98 Mo. 426, 11 S. W. 973.

96 Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447, 26 L. Ed. 405; State v. Welch, 21 Minn. 22.

98 State v. Barringer, 110 N. C. 525, 14 S. E. 781.

99 Whart. Com. on Amer. Law, S$ 13,598.

11 Black. Com. 86.

2 Bretz v. Mayor, etc., 3 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 478. See Sherman Co. v. Simons, 109 U. S. 735, 3 S. C. Rep. 502, 27 L. Ed. 1093.

3 Ashford v. Watkins, 70 Ala. 156. 4 Rice v. Parkman, 16 Mass. 326; Moore v. Maxwell, 18 Ark. 469; Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119, 18 L. Ed. 502; McComb v. Gilkey, 29 Miss. 146; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 657, 7 L. Ed. 542; Lessee of Dulany v.

97 Albion v. Maple Lake, 71 Minn. Tilghman, 6 Gill & J. 461; Croxall v. 503, 74 N. W. 282.

Shererd, 5 Wall. 268, 18 L. Ed. 572;

creation of a private corporation are of this character." And it is held to make no difference that the charter contains provisions of a public nature or that the state is a large stockholder."

The recital of facts in a private statute is strong evidence against those who obtained the act, but is not evidence against strangers, nor are such statutes binding on strangers. They may be avoided for fraud.

part public and in part private." The courts do not take

judicial notice of private statutes.12 proved in the usual manner.

They have to be But in England by virtue of

a statute, and in some of the states of the Union, all acts are public, and the courts take notice of them.14 And under the prevalent constitutional prohibition of special and local legislation, the distinction between public and private acts has lost much of its importance.

§ 323. Miscellaneous cases.-The supreme court of the United States, in a recent case, says that "wherever, by the express language of an act of congress, power is intrusted to either of the principal departments of government to prescribe rules and regulations for the transaction of business in which the public is interested, and in respect to which they have a right to participate, and by which they are to be controlled, the rules and regulations prescribed in pursuance of such authority become a mass of that body of public records of which the courts take judicial notice." 15 A joint resolution of the legislature will be noticed the same as a public act.16 It has been held that the president's proclamation of amnesty, issued December 25, 1868, has the force of a public law and that the courts will take notice of the same.17

The Case of the Chancellor of Oxford, 10 Coke, 57; Hasketh v. Lee, 2 Saund. 84; Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 499; Perchard v. Heywood, 8 T. R. 472; Wallwyn v. Lee, 9 Ves. 25; Bullock v. Fladgate, 1 Ves. & Bea. 471; Vauxhall Bridge Co. v. Earl Spencer, 2 Mad. 356; S. C., 4 Cond. Ch. 28; Edwards v. Grand Junction R. R. Co., 10 id. 85; Moore v. Usher, id. 107; 2 Black. Com. 344; Cru. Dig., tit. 33. It is never permitted to affect strangers or to defeat the rights of bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration; because, as to strangers, a private act is considered only in

the light of a private conveyance.
Pomfret v. Windsor, 2 Ves. 480."
11 Dwarris on St. 354; People v.
Supervisors, 43 N. Y. 10.
12 1 Black. Com. 86.

13 Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Pet. 317, 8 L. Ed. 412.

14 13 and 14 Vic., ch. 21.

15 Caha v. United States, 152 U. S. 211, 222, 14 S. C. Rep. 513, 38 L. Ed. 415. Compare United States v. Bedgood, 49 Fed. 54.

16 McCarver v. Herzberg, 120 Ala. 523, 25 So. 3.

17 Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U. S. 546, 12 S. C. Rep. 868, 36 L. Ed. 812.

CHAPTER XI.

CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATUTES.

§ 324 (195). The names of statutes.- In the preceding pages we have discussed the general nature, enactment, duration and proof of statutes and cognate topics. We have now to discuss the principles by which is determined their meaning and effect. These principles are adapted to the peculiar nature of the statute; therefore, a chapter explaining the different kinds of statutes, with the names by which they are designated, will naturally precede the exposition of the principles which diversify and make up the law of hermeneutics. Some of these statutes have already been defined, but it will be useful to present them with others in one comprehensive view. They bear names. significant of their origin, form or intrinsic nature. Many by name and operation are in dual contrast or contradistinction. English statutes, in part entering into our jurisprudence and in part foreign, are distinguished as ancient and modern. In our system we have federal, state, colonial and territorial statutes. A generical classification of all statutes is as public or private. The former are divided into species of general and local or special statutes. General statutes are further divided by other distinctions. In respect to duration they are temporary or perpetual; in respect to their force with reference to the date of taking effect, prospective or retroactive; as to the nature of their operation, declaratory, permissive, prohibitive, preceptive, remedial, directory, mandatory or repealing statutes; as to form, affirmative or negative. Another large and important class of public statutes is designated as penal.

§ 325 (196). Ancient statutes of England.-The statutes termed ancient are those adopted in Latin and French