A statute declaring the meaning of a prior act, etc., will not be construed to be an in vasion of the judicial function, but will be treated as a. direct enactment controlling the meaning of the prior act ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. McCollock, 24 Fed. 667. But it has been held that the legislature cannot pass an act so as to compel the courts in the future to adopt a particular construction of an earlier statute ; Com. v. Warwick, 172 Pa. 140, 33 Atl. 373, Mitchell, J., dissenting from the judgment of the court as being "an unprece dented and unwarranted invasion by the ju diciary of the legislative authority." But see Titusville Iron Works v. Oil Co., 122 Pa. 627, 15 Atl. 917, 1 L. R. A. 361, and Haley v. Philadelphia, 68 Pa. 45, 8 Am. Rep. 153, where the doctrine seems to have been con fined to retrospective legislation.
The ,legislature cannot prevent the courts from putting their own interpretation on an act, at least as to rights which vested before the declaratory act was passed ; Virginia Coupon Cases, 25 Fed. 641; Stephenson v. Doe, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 508, 46 Am. Dec. 489.
See an article in 35 Am. L. Reg. & Rev. 25, by William M. Meigs.
It is a general rule that when the provision of a statute is general, everything. which .is necessary to make such provisidn effectual is supplied by the common law; Co. Litt. 235; Co. 2d Inst. 222 ; and when a power is given by statute, everything necessary for making it effectual is given by implication : quando lea; aliquid concedit, conceders vide tur et id sine quo res ipsa ease non potest; 12 Co. 130.
The provisions of a statute cannot be evad ed by any shift or contrivance ; 2 B. & C. 655. Whatever is prohibited by law to be done directly cannot legally be effected by an in direct and circuitous contrivance; 7 Cl. & F. 540.
Reference Bureaus. The mode of enacting laws is regulated by the constitution of the Union and of the several states respectively. The advantage of having a law officer, or board of officers, to revise bills and amend ments of bills during their progress through the legislature, has been somewhat discussed. Agencies are established in some of the states for rendering technical assistance to legis lators. Reference bureaus connected with state libraries, universities or historical so cieties have been established in Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Mass achusetts, Nebraska, New York, North Dako ta, Rhode Island and Virginia. These have been authorized by law in some states and and-in others without express authority. Ref erence and drafting bureaus have been es tablished by statute in California, Indiana, Michigan,•Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin. Bureaus
or offices have been created by statute or leg islative rule for drafting work only in Con necticut, Massachusetts and New York.
In the Michigan act (1907) the bureau is. required to procure and compile, in suitable and convenient form for ready reference and access, information as to proposed and pend ing legislation in other states and to inves tigate the operation and effect of new legis lation in other states and countries, so that any legislator or citizen may have the fullest information thereon, and it shall also gilfe such advice and assistance to the members of the legislature as they may require in the preparation of bills, and shall draft bills up on such subjects as they may desire.
See Report of the Committee on Legisla tive Drafting, Am. Bar Assoc., 1913, p. 622; also Report for 1882; Reports of Engl. Stat. Law Coin. 1856-1857; Street, Council of Revision ; PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL.
Enacting legislation. As to formalities required it has been held that a statute which the legislative journals showed was never passed, was valid because signed by the presiding officers of the legislature ; Wyatt v. Mfg. Co., 116 N. C. 271, 22 S. E. 120 ; and that it Is not admissible to prove that an act signed by the governor was in fact passed by the legislature and sent to him within two days next preceding the final adjournment of the legislature in violation of the constitu tion; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 141 Ind. 281, 40 N. E. 1051, 60 L. R. A. 671.
The signing by the speaker of the United States house of representatives, and by the president of the senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses that such bill has passed con gress, and when the bill thus attested, re ceives the approval of the president, and Is deposited in the department of state its au thentication as a bill that has passed con gress is complete and unimpeachable ; Mar shall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294. See JOURNALS. - As to whether the president has the power to sign bills after the adjournment of con gress, Attorney-General Wirt was of the opinion that he had not, and President Mon roe acted on his opinion. President Lincoln signed the act of \larch 12, 1863, after the adjournment of congress. A house committee subsequently reported that in their opinion the act was not in force, but the house never acted upon their report. The court of claims holds that this act has been recognized by the supreme court, and was therefore valid ; see 32 Amer. Law Rev. 211; U. S. v. Weil, 29 Ct. Cl. 549.