Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. United States v. Harris (177 U.S. 305…

The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases which those words, in their ordinary acceptation, or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend. The intention of the legislature is to be collected from the words they employ. Where there is no ambiguity in the words there is no room for construction.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. United States v. Harris (177 U.S. 305…

To determine that a case is within the intention of a statute its language must authorize us to say so. It would be dangerous, indeed, to carry the principle that a case which is within the reason or mischief of a statute is within its provisions, so far as to punish a crime not enumerated in the statute because it is of equal atrocity, or of a kindred character with those which are enumerated.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. United States v. Harris (177 U.S. 305…

Upon the whole, the proposition of the government's counsel is that the words 'any company, owner, or custodian of such animals,' used in § 4388, are intended to cover all those who can possibly violate the preceding two sections; that the words 'every company' must, therefore, be held to include a railroad company, whether a person, a partnership or a corporation, and whether acting individually, or through officers or receivers.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature