of Congress.46 Again, an intention to surrender the right to demand the carriage of mails over subsidized railroads at reasonable rates, assumed in construing a statute of the United States, is opposed to the established policy of Congress.47 Courts will not impute to the legislature an intention to obstruct or impede the operation of constitutional provisions or to innovate upon the settled policy of the law.48 And a construction should be given so as to be in harmony rather than in conflict with the general principles of law where the meaning of the statute is doubtful.49 § 264. Remedial Statutes.-Remedial statutes should be liberally construed so as to effectuate the purpose intended, advance the remedy and prevent the mischief or evil,50 and the precise words of a remedial statute will be extended to effect the purpose clearly manifested.51 So a statute is a remedial one which provided for a state board of transportation with certain powers as to inspection and superintending railroads, and it should not be strictly construed.52 "Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 39 L. ed. 601, 15 Sup. Ct. 508. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 190, 17 Sup. Ct. 45, 41 L. ed. 399. New Jersey: Camden & A. R. Transp. Co. v. Briggs, 22 N. J. L. 623. North Carolina: Morris v. Staton, 44 N. C. 464. Oregon: Tucker v. Constable, 16 Webb v. Ritter, 60 W. Va. 193, Oreg. 407, 19 Pac. 13. 54 S. E. 484. 49 Building & Loan Assoc. Sohn, 54 W. Va. 101, 46 S. E. 222. v. Illinois: Harrison v. National Bank, 108 Ill. App. 493, case aff'd 207 Ill. 630, 69 N. E. 871. Indiana: Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Talbot, 113 Ind. 373, 14 N. E. 586. West Virginia: Janesville Hay Tool Co. v. Boyd, 35 W. Va. 240, 13 S. E. 381. Wisconsin: Kendall v. Hynes Lumber Co., 96 Wis. 659, 71 N. W. 1039. See Rawson v. State, 19 Conn. 292; Trandt v. Hagerman, 27 Ind. App. 150, 60 N. E. 1011; Carey v. Missouri: Easley v. Bone, 39 Mo. Giles, 9 Ga. 253. App. 388. Nebraska: Williams v. Miles, 62 Neb 566, 87 N. W. 315; McIntosh v. Johnson, 51 Neb. 33, 70 N. W. 522. 51 Gray v. Cumberland County Commrs., 83 Me. 429, 22 Atl. 376. 52 State, Transportation Board, v. Fremont E. & M. V. R. Co., 22 Neb. 313, 35 N. W. 118. § 265. Statutes in Pari Materia. -Statutes are in pari materia which relate to the same thing or general subject-matter whether passed by the same legislature, or about the same time, or whenever passed, and even though they do not refer to each other, are to be construed together as one system in order to determine the legislative purpose and arrive at the true intent.53 If a thing contained in a subsequent statute be 53 United States: Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727, 28 L. ed. 1137 (a case of state right to control foreign corporations; what is and is not doing business in State; interstate commerce); Ryan v. Carter, 93 U. S. 78, 84, 23 L. ed. 807; Harrington v. United States, 11 Wall. (78 U.S.) 356, 365, 20 L. ed. 167; United States v. Babbit, 1 Black (66 U. S.), 55, 60, 17 L. ed. 94; United States v. Walker, 22 How. (63 U. S.) 299, 312, 16 L. ed.; Converse v. United States, 21 How. (62 U. S.) 463, 467, 16 L. ed. ; United States v. Freeman, 3 How. (44 U. S.) 556, 11 L. ed. 724; Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. (24 U. S.) 380, 385, 386, 6 L. ed. 500; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc., 58 Fed. 58, 67, 19 U. S. App. 36, 24 L. R. A. 73 (interstate commerce; monopolies; "pooling contracts" between competing corporations, see same case, 166 U. S. 290; United States v. Benson, 31 Fed. 896. Alabama: State v. Sloss, 83 Ala. 93, 3 So. 745 (a case of taxation of gross receipts of business of corporation). Colorado: People v. Raymond, 18 Colo. 242, 248, 19 L. R. A. 649, 32 Pac. 429. District of Columbia: United States, Koechlin, v. Marble, 2 Mackey (D. C.), 12. County 24 Fla. 390, 5 So. 1; O'Donovan, Ex parte, 24 Fla. 281, 4 So. 789. Illinois: Chudnovski v. Eckels, 232 Ill. 312, 83 N. E. 846; Hunt v. Chicago Horse & Dummy Co., 121 Ill. 638, 644, 13 N. E. 176 (right of street railway company to use city streets); Meyer v. Hazelwood, 116 Ill. 319, 323, 6 N. E. 480. Indiana: Noerr v. Schmidt, 151 Ind. 579, 583, 51 N. E. 332; Conn v. Cass County Commrs., 151 Ind. 517, 51 N. E. 1062; State, Michener, v. Harrison, 116 Ind. 300, 19 N. E. 146. Iowa: Eckerson v. City of Des Moines (Iowa, 1908), 115 N. W. 177. Kansas: Hall, In re, 38 Kan. 670, 17 Pac. 649. Louisiana: Richardson v. Richardson, 38 La. Ann. 641. Maine: French v. Cowan, 79 Me. 426, 10 Atl. 335; Merrill v. Crossman, 68 Me, 412, Michigan: Simpkins v. Ward, 45 Mich. 559, 8 N. W. 507. Missouri: State, Brown, v. Klein, 116 Mo. 259, 22 S. W. 693; Stump v. Hornback, 94 Mo. 26, 6 S. W. 326; Gibbins v. Brittenum, 56 Mo. 251; Grimes v. Reynolds, 94 Mo. App. 578, 68 S. W. 588. Nebraska: State v. Royse, 71 Neb. 1, 3, 97 N. W. 473, 98 N. W. 459; State, Berry, v. Babcock, 21 Neb. 599. Nevada: State, Hallock, v. Donnelly, 20 Nev. 214, 19 Pac. 680. New Jersey: Gartner v. Cohen, Florida: Ferrari V. Escambia 51 N. J. L. 125, 16 Atl. 684. within the reason of a former statute, it shall be taken to be within the meaning of that statute. And if it can be gathered from a subsequent statute in pari materia what meaning the legislature attached to the words of a former statute, this will amount to a legislative declaration of its meaning, and will govern the construction of the first statute.54 So a chapter of a certain enactment extending the power, jurisdiction and control of a court of visitation over telegraph companies and telegraphic service within a State will be held in pari materia with another chapter of the statutes passed the same year creating a court of visitation and attempting to extend its power, jurisdiction and control over the railways of the State, and it must be construed in connection with that statute the same as though both chapters constituted one enactment.55 New York: Syracuse Water Co. v. City of Syracuse, 116 N. Y. 167, 179, 22 N. E. 381, 26 N. Y. St. R. 364, 5 L. R. A. 546; Kilbourne v. Supervisor of Sullivan F. St. R., 62 Hun (N. Y), 210, 217, 41 N. E. 838, aff'g 137 N. Y. 170, 50 N. Y. St. R. 376, 33 N. E. 159. cerning the same subject-matter, being in pari materia, are to be taken and considered together to determine the legislative purpose and arrive at the true intent. Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Austin, 67 Kan. 208, 212, 72 Pac. 850. Laws passed at the same session North Carolina: Wortham v. Bas- of the legislature and relating to the ket, 99 N. C. 70, 5 S. E. 401. Ohio: State, Attorney General, v. Cincinnati Central R. Co., 37 Ohio St. 157, 170. Pennsylvania: White v. Meadville, 177 Pa. 643, 34 L. R. A. 567, 27 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 97, 39 N. F. 102, 35 Atl. 695. same subject are in pari materia and are to be construed together as one. Blackwell v. First National Bank, 10 N. M. 555, 63 Pac. 43. See also Garrison v. Richardson (Tex. Civ. App., 1908), 107 S. W. 861. Other statutes are to be considered even though not in force where mean Tennessee: Graham v. Dunn, 3 ing doubtful. State, Michener, v. Pick. (87 Tenn.) 458, 462. Texas: Garrison v. Richards (Tex. Civ. App., 1908), 107 S. W. 861. Statutes are in pari materia which, whenever passed, relate to the same thing or general subject-matter, and are to be construed together. State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439, 44 N. E. 469, 33 L. R. A. 313. Laws enacted by the same legislature about the same time and con Harrison, 116 Ind. 300, 19 N. E. 146; Stedman v. Merchants' & P. Bank, 69 Tex. 50, 6 S. W. 675. Antecedent and subsequent legislation to be considered. Gray v. Cumberland County Commissioners, 83 Me. 429, 22 Atl. 370. 54 United States v. Freeman, 3 How. (44 U. S.) 556, 11 L. ed. 724. 55 Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Austin, 67 Kan. 208, 212, 72 Pac. 850. § 266. Statutes in Pari Materia Continued. The whole system of which a statute forms a part should be considered and construed as one system and be read in pari materia. So a clause in controversy may be construed in connection with previous acts upon the same subject, with other provisions of the same act and with a provisions of a statute upon which the subject-matter is dependent for its enforcement and with which as a system the statute in question forms a part.57 And where by the constitution of a State the subjects of land titles and taxation are, to some extent, united in one scheme or plan, all statutes relating to either and affecting the subject-matter of the provisions of the article of the constitution in which they are set forth must be construed and interpreted in the light thereof and made to harmonize with and conform to said constitutional plan.58 The same principle has been applied in a Federal case where a statute and a clause of the constitution of a State imposing certain conditions upon foreign corporations as prerequisites to their transacting business there were construed together as relating to the same subjectmatter.50 § 267. Statutes in Pari Materia Continued-Exception to or Qualification of Rule. -The rule in pari materia, that the similar terms of like statutes should receive like interpretations, does not apply where the provisions of the statute relative to the question in controversy are plain and explicit, as the rule is applicable only in case of ambiguity or doubt and because the objects intended to be accomplished, the evils to be remedied, and the provisions necessary to attain them, are radically different. It is decided, therefore, that the rule in pari materia is inapplicable to the Interstate Commerce Act and the Safety Appliance Act where the provisions of the latter are plain and explicit in relation to the question before the court.60 56 Brace v. Solner, 1 Alaska, 361. 57 Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Binhert, 106 Ill. 298, 306. 58 Webb v. Ritter, 60 W. Va. 193, 54 S. E. 484. 50 Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727, 28 L. ed. 1137, 5 Sup. Ct. 739. Go United States v. Colorado & Northwestern Rd. Co. (C. C. A.), 157 In the case in which this decision was rendered the court, per Sanborn, Cir. J., said: “It is true that each act was a regulation of interstate commerce, but so are the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Employers' Liability Act, the various acts relating to the inspection of steamboats, and the navigation of the inland rivers, lakes and bays, and many other acts, too numerous to mention or review. It does not follow from the facts that the Interstate Commerce Act was first passed, and that it regulates commerce among the States, and declares that its provisions shall apply to the members of a certain class of carriers engaged therein, that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Safety Appliance Acts, and other subsequent acts regulating commerce apply to the members of that class only, in the face of the positive declarations of the later acts that they shall govern other parties and other branches of commerce. The subject of the first act was the contracts, the rates of transportation of articles of interstate commerce; the subject of the Safety Appliance Acts was the construction of the vehicles, the cars and engines which carry that commerce. The evils the former was passed to remedy were discrimination and favoritism in contracts and rates of carriage; the evils the latter was enacted to diminish were injuries to employees of carriers by the use of dangerous cars and engines. The remedy for the mischiefs which induced the passage of the former act was equality of contracts and rates of transportation; the remedy for the evils at which the latter act was leveled was the equipment of cars and engines with automatic couplers. Neither in their subjects, in the mischiefs they were enacted to remove, in the remedies required, nor in the remedies provided, do these acts relate to similar matters, and the rule that the words or terms of acts in pari materia should have similar interpretations ought not to govern their construction." 61 §268. Words or Provisions of Prior Statute Adopted in Fed. 321, 330, citing Endlich on Northwestern Rd. Co. (C. C. A.), 157 "United States v. Colorado & |