|
|
L. H. J.
Liber No. 46
|
and of the Upper House of Assembly; Be it therefore Enacted by
the Authority aforesaid, by and with the Advice and Consent afore-
said, That no such Member shall be obliged to serve in the Militia,
or be enrolled or inlisted in any Regiment, Troop, or Company
thereof; any Law to the contrary notwithstanding." These are all
the Places of that Law in 1732, which we can find in any way re-
ferring to any former Militia Law whatever; and we think are so
worded, as not to refer to any particular Law, but generally to " such
as are now in force within this Province, relating to the Militia
thereof." From which manner of wording it is plain, that the Legis-
lature only intended this as a supplementary Law to such Laws
relating to the Militia, as were at the Time of the making thereof
actually in force, and to none other; and if those Laws of 1715 and
1722 were, long before the making of this, expired, as we hope is
by the former Part of this Address to your Excellency sufficiently
made out, then we clearly think this latter Law can be no supple-
mentary Law to them: Nor can we think your Excellency's Part
of this Question is in any manner strengthened by the Title to this
Law of 1732; for besides that we conceive the Title to a Law is no
Part of that Law, yet admit it were, it must be construed consis-
tently with the different Parts of the Body of the Law it self; and
then it will stand thus, A Supplementary Act to such Act for the
ordering and regulating the Militia of this Province, for the better
Defence and Security thereof, as is now in force," and leaves the
matter as before; and there being no former Militia Law in force at
the Time of making this last Act, it cannot be a supplementary Law
to one having no Being: And we must beg leave to observe, that we
cannot find that the legislative Power (that is in the year 1732) did
not think the Act of 1715 was expired, but on the contrary looked
upon it to be, as it really is, a perpetual Law, referred to it in several
Places, and supplied some Defects in it; for besides that we have
before shewn that it does not appear to be a perpetual Law, we not
|
|
|
|
p. 509
|
only think it strange, that had they looked on the Law of 1715 to
have been in force, they should not have recited it so, or in some
Part or other of that long Law have referred to it in express Terms,
but we also conceive that by the before recited Clauses of the Act of
1732, referring generally to such Laws relating to the Militia as
were then in force, they seem cautiously to have avoided saying any
Thing which might thereafter be taken as an Acknowledgment that
any Law whatever relating to the Militia was in force, and choosing,
from a Multiplicity of Business, or some other Reason, rather than
at that Time to go into the Consideration, and perhaps a Dispute, on
the Existence of any such Law, to refer the Determination of it to
some other Season; and were we to admit they did think that some
Law relating to the Militia was then in force, since there is none par-
ticularly named why must it be the Law of 1715 were there no
|
|
