Ch.

1]

D E F I N I T I O N OF TERMS

Different MeUioiU of Interpretation.

The methods of interpretation hare been variously classified by different writers. According to one of the most eminent, interpretation is said to be either "legal," which rests on the same authority as the law itself, or "doctrinal," which rests upon its intrinsic reasonableness. Legal interpretation may be either "authentic," when it is expressly provided by the legislator,* or "usual," when it is derived from unwritten practice. Doctrinal interpretation may turn on the meaning of words and sentences, when it is called "grammatical," or on the intention of the legislator, when it is described as "logical." When logical interpretation stretches the words of a statute to cover its obvious meaning, it is called "extensive;"* when, on the other hand, it avoids giving full meaning to the words, in order not to go beyond the intention of the legislator, it is called "restrictive."
T

Lieber, in his work on Hermeneutics, gives the following classification of the different kinds of interpretation: "Close" interpretation is adopted if just reasons connected with the character and formation of the text induce us to take the words in their narrowest meaning. This species of interpretation is also generally called "literal." "Extensive" interpretation, called also "liberal" interpretation, adopts a more comprehensive signification of the words. The term "authentic" Interpretation may also be applied to the Interpretation put upon the laws of a given state by its own government. Including the judicial department thereof, when the same are required to be Interpreted and applied by the tribunals of another state. The courts of one of the states of the American Union will follow the construction put upon the statutes of another state by the courts of the latter state. So the courts of the United States arc the "authentic" Interpreters of the constitution and laws of the United States, and the courts of the states are bound to follow and adopt their interpretation of those laws. And conversely, the federal courts adopt the construction put upon state statutes by the courts of the state which enacted them. 8helby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361; Black, Const Law, 140. "The so-called 'extensive' interpretation of statute law ex ratlone legls, Is the extension of the provisions of the law to a case which they do not comprise because the case falls within the scope of the law, although the provisions of the law do not luclude It There In truly an extension of the law." Austin, Jurisprudence, g 013. * Holland, Jurisprudence, 344; Lieber, Hermeneutics, 03.