Expositio

QUAE EX VISCERIBUS causae nascltur, est aptissima et fortissima In lege. That exposition which springs from the vitals of a cause is the fittest and most powerful in law. 10 Coke, 24.

I. Explanation; interpretation. cansae nascitur, est aptissima et fortissiina interpretation which is born [or drawn] is the aptest and most forcible in the law.

Explanation; exposition; interpretation. Expositio que ex visceribus cause nascitur, est aptissima et fortissima in lege, That kind of interpretation which is born [or drawn] from the bowels of a cause is the aptest and most forcible in the law. 10 Coke, 24d.

A setting out — the meaning of language; (explanation; interpretation. Contemporanea expositio optima et fortissima in lege. The explanation of the time is the fittest and strongest in law. Contemporaneous interpretation is the most satisfactory. Words in constitutions, treaties, statutes, — old writings generally, will be given the sense and scope they had with the makers or framers. The courts will not distm'b the construction put upon a doubtful law by long usage.* Contemporaneous construction " can never abrogate the text, it can never fritter away its obvious sense, it can never narrow down its true lunitations, it can never enlarge its natural boundaries." ' The contemporaneous construction of a statute by those charged with its execution, especially when it has long prevailed, is entitled to great weight, and should not be disregarded or overturned except for cogent reasons, and unless It be clear that such construction is erroneous.^ Compare Error, 1, Communis, etc. ' Evans v. Columbian Ins. Co., 44 N. Y. 151-62 (1870). ' Scripture v. iowell Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Cush. 366 (ia52). See also 56 Md. 81; 81 Wend. 367; 3 Phila. 333; 19 C. B. N. s. 126. 5 Ejrp. Martin, 7 Nev. 142 (1871); Woodruff u.Parham, 8 Wall, 131 (1868). * Adams Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 75 Pa. 256 (1874); 12 Vt. 212. » 2 Bishop, Cr. L. § 318; 46 N. J. L. 16. •Ames 11. Kansas, 111 U. S. 4(M (1884). ' 1 Story, Const. § 407. ' United States v. Johnston, 124 U. S. 253 (1888), cases, Harlan, J.; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 418 (1821), Marshall, C. J.; Harrison v. Commonwealth, 83 Ky. 171 (1885); United States D.,Say Ior, 31 F. R. 548 (1887). See also 5 Cranch, 22; 12 Wheat. 210; 99 U. S. 266; 101 id. 461; 107 id. 406; 113 id. 671, 733'; 116 id. 622; 31 F. E. 268; 6 Col. 92; 9 id. 93; 6 Conn. 89; 119 111. 345; 36 Kan. Ill; 83 Ky. 103; 17 Mass. *144; 44 N. J. L. 22; 16 Ohio