Revise

To re-examine and amend: as, to revise a judgment, a code, laws, statutes, reports, accounts.

Compare Review, 1.

Revisions of codes and statutes, partial or entire, have been enacted as follows: In Alabama, in 1876, 1887; Arizona, 1887 (compiled laws); Arkansas, 1874; California, 1873; Colorado, 1877, 1883; Connecticut, 1875, 1887; Dakota, 1877, 1887; Delaware, 1874; Florida, 1872; Georgia, 1832; Idaho, 1878, 1887; Illinois, 1874, 1883; Indiana, 1862, 1881; Iowa, 1813, 1880; Kansas, 1868, 1879; Kentucky, 1873, 1887; Louisiana, 1870, 1875, 1882, 1884; Maine, 1871, 1883; Maryland, 1878, 1886, 1888; Massachusetts, 1860, with supplements to 1872, and to 1882; Michigan, 1871; Minnesota, 1866,1888; Mississippi, 1880; Missouri, 1879; Montana, 1879, 1887; Nebraska, 1881, 1887; Nevada, 1873, 1885; New Hampshire, 1878; New Jersey, 1877, 1837; New Mexico, 1884; New York, 1829, with eight revised editions to 1888; North Carolina, 1883; Ohio, 1880; Oregon, 1872; Pennsylvania, a criminal code in 1863; Rhode Island, 1882; South Carolina, 1882; Tennessee, 1871, 1884; Texas, 1879; Utah, 1876; Vermont, 1880; Virginia, 1873, 1887; Washington, 1881; West Virginia, 1883, 1887; Wisconsin, 1878; Wyoming, 1S76, 188T.2 Revised Statutes. Statutes which have been amended, re-arranged, and re-enacted. Where, by a statute, there is a revision of the whole subject-matter of former statutes, the earlier enactments are repealed so far as it appears it was the intention of the legislature to repeal them. The revision repeals by implication so far as it is repugnant to the old law, or when it is evidently intended as a substitute." A different interpretation is not to be given to revised statutes without some substantial change of phraseology other than what may have been necessary to abbreviate the form of the law.* Where the language is of such doubtful import as to call for a construction, it is usual to refer to the statute or statutes from which the revision was made. But where the language is plain, and leads to no absurd or improbable result, there is no room for construction, and such effect will be given it as is required by the ordinary signification of the words used, re- ' Merivale v. Carson, 20 Q. B. D. 275 (1887), cases. The defendant was the editor of a theatrical newspaper called The Stage. A criticism of the play called '"fhe Whii) Hand," published in his paper, falsely charged, plaintiff alleged, that the play had an immoral tendency.

2 See Stimson Am. St. Law, IX-XTV; 1 Sup. p. 14, § 1047; Banks & Brothers' Catalogue, 188S.

For each State there are one or more IJigests, Compilations, or Supplements prepared by private persons, and, therefore, not authoritative. 3 Bowlus V. Brier, 87 Ind. 396 (18g2), Black, C; 41 id. gardless of the prior statute or its construction. The rational rule must be to resort to the prior statute to remove, not to raise, doubts.' Revised Statutes of the United States. An act of Congress, passed June 37, 1866, authorized the appointment of three commissioners, learned in the law, to revise, simplify, arrange, and consolidate all the statutes of the United States, of general or permanent nature.2 This revision, which embraced statutes in force up to December 1, 1873, went into effect June 33, 1874.

— An act of June 20, 1874, dire(!ffed the secretary of state to cause the head and marginal notes to be completed, referring to the original statutes and to decisions explaining the same;

— to annex an index and otherwise prepare the work for printing and distribution; and, finally, to certify the completion of the work. This act provided, further, that, after promulgation, the printed volumes should be evidence of the laws and treaties therein contained in all courts." The revision repeals all acts embraced within it. No presumption of a legislative intent is to be drawn from the arrangement and classilicution of titles and sections.* • Acts of February 18, and March 3, 1875, declared that acts passed since December 1, 1873, are not affected by the revision.* Act of March 2, 1877, authorized the appointment of one commissioner to prepare a new edition; the same to be examined and certified by the secretary of state. ^ This second edition was published February 18, 1878. Act of March 9, 1878, makes the second edition evidence, but not to control or affect acts passed since December 1, 1873.' Act of June 7, 1880, authorized a supplement to be prepared and published. The same to be prima facie evidence, but not to preclude reference to, nor control in case of discrepancy, the effect of any original act. nor to change or alter any existing law.* The first edition is a transcript of the original work in the state department. It is prima facie evidence of the law. The second edition is neither a new revision nor a new enactment, merely a new publication — a compilation containing the original law with certain alterations and amendments made by subsequent legislation, incorporated therein according to the judgment of the editor, who had no direction to correct errors or supply omissions.' ' Heck V. State, 44 Ohio St. 637-38 (1886), cases. = See B. S. for 1878, p. 1080. ' R. S. p. 1000. 4 United States v. Jordan, 2 Low. 537, 542 (1876). »R. S. p. 1085; 15Ct. CI. 80. « B. S. p. 1092. ' 1 Sup. R. S. pp. 308, 52, 283. e 1 Sup. R. S. pp. 582-S3. Sections in pari materia are to be construed together.' Section 5506 of the reyision indicates a belief on the, part of Congress that all parts Qf acts passed prior to December 1, 18T3, not contained in the revision, are superseded. That is 9, recital of belief, not a declarationv and not conclusive. Wliether a statute was repealed by a later one is a judicial, not a legislative, question." The revision is the legislative declaration of the statute law on the subjects embraced on December 1, 1873. When the meaning is plain, the courts cannot look to the statutes which have been revised to see if Congress erred in that revision, but may do so when necessary to construe doubtful language used in expressing the meaning.^* The revision as a whole is an £^ct of Congress, approved June 88, 1 874. In cases of uncertainty, the previous statutes may be referred to, to elucidate the legislative intent. But where the language is_ clear, the revision, as expressing the latest will, must govern.* While, in construing the revision, the presumption is against an intention to change the law, yet, where the language cannot possibly bear the same construction as in the repealed act, full effect must be given to the new enactment.' See Eepeal; Statttes, At Large.