154 BINNEY'S CASE.

tion from the proceedings, or debates of any one of the four inde-
pendent legislative bodies, by whom it has been adopted. And,
if the grave and solemn movements of the several legislative bodies
themselves, by whom it was passed, cannot be considered as alto-
gether safe guides in ascertaining its meaning, most assuredly the
resolutions of the various assemblages of people, who have met at
sundry times to consult about 'this great enterprise,' with all the
unofficial sayings and doings in relation to it, which have been so
much pressed upon the attention of the court, must be utterly
rejected, as absolutely unworthy of any the slighest respect or
attention whatever.

It would be of dangerous consequence to admit parol proof of an
intention in the law makers, different from that manifested by the
words of the law itself; as to shew, that a duty which the act of
Assembly called a port duty, was intended to be a fort duty, (m)
In construing a legislative enactment, a court of justice cannot
regard the resolutions, orders, or propositions entered upon the
journals of either branch of the legislative department; but must
look to the statute book alone, the words of which must speak for
themselves; nor can it consider the motives which may have influ-
enced the legislature any further than they are manifested by the
language of the statute itself. A judge must form his judgment of
the meaning of the legislature as if the case had been brought
before him by demurrer, in the consideration and determination of
which no evidence can be admitted; yet, in all such cases he may
well inform himself from dictionaries or books which treat on the
particular subject; in doing so, however, such authorities are not
to be regarded as mere evidence, but only as the grounds of his
judgment, as if he were to cite authorities illustrative of the opinion
he delivers, (n)

The provisions of the act incorporating The Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal Company, upon the true construction of which the pre-
sent question turns, relate only to the termination of a great work
which that corporation is to cause to be executed; and the matter
to be decided is, where that termination was intended to be; or
whether that body politic has been restricted to any given space or

(m) By the king in Council on rejecting Lord Baltimore's claim of certain Port
Duties; Bacon's Law of Maryland, 1692, ch. 17, note.—(n) The King v. Wadding-
ton, 1 East 148,158; The Attorney-General v. The Cast Plate Glass Company, 1
Anstr. 80; Cameron v. Cameron, 7 Cond. Chan. Rep. 374; The people v. Utica
Insurance Company, 15 Johns. Rep. 380,394.