construction has been abolished by its provisions so that all statutes in Iowa will now be given a liberal construction except criminal acts." The court has said that different rules apply to criminal cases than those which obtain in civil matters, and as a result the above section does not apply to criminal statutes. Consequently the criminal law of Iowa will always be given a strict construction by the courts.78

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE ACTS

Unless otherwise stated all laws will be presumed by the courts to operate prospectively and not retrospectively. In other words, it must be the manifest intent of the legislature to have a statute operate retrospectively in order that it may be so applied by the judiciary: otherwise it will be given only a prospective operation. There are a few exceptions to this rule and one of them concerns remedial acts. In Iowa statutes which provide remedies and are therefore additions to the adjective law will be given a retrospective turn. Likewise it has been held that when a consideration of public policy requires the law-making body to give a law a retrospective character, the courts will infer that such retrospective character does exist even though there is no expressed declaration to that effect.79

In connection with the special features discussed in the preceding paragraphs it must at all times be remembered by draftsmen and legislators that when the statute is clear and unambiguous, so when a literal interpretation would not lead to absurdity or injustice,81 "there is no room for construction" by the courts.82 Under such circumstances there is no question as to the effect of an ex

ception or proviso; the courts do not have to puzzle over the provisions of a section to determine if it is mandatory or directory; there is no need of a rule of liberal construction; and the time of operation is determined from the statute. The act speaks for itself.

A more detailed treatment of the adjudicated cases in which statutes have been interpreted and construed by the Supreme Court of Iowa would show many instances in the judicial history of this State where the language of the court has been as unsatisfactory as the language of the General Assembly. This was the case in the decisions involving the use of the journals of the legislature as extrinsic aids in construction. In the light of these facts it could hardly be said that the General Assembly alone is guilty of using inaccurate and meaningless language. Is it not, then, safe to say that both the courts and legislature of this State have found human language a deficient agent for conveying ideas? Should the General Assembly alone be blamed for the character of statute law? Or should the courts be charged with some of the responsibility? Perhaps after all many of the defects in modern statute law are inherent in the methods of enactment and application.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (seventh edition), p. 70.

2 Noble v. The State, 1 G. Greene 325, at 330.

3 Fry v. Fry, 125 Iowa 424, at 430.

4 Woods v. Mains, 1 G. Greene 275; Haskel v. Burlington, 30 Iowa 232; Wheelock v. Madison County, 75 Iowa 147; Chamberlain v. Iowa Telephone Company, 119 Iowa 619, at 621.

McShane v. Independent District of Pleasant Grove, 76 Iowa 333; Banker's Mutual Casualty Co. v. First National Bank, 131 Iowa 456, at 464; State v. Smith, 7 Iowa 244; Allen v. Davenport, 107 Iowa 90.

• Glass v. Cedar Rapids, 68 Iowa 207, at 210.

7 City Council of Marion v. Cedar Rapids & M. C. R. Co., 120 Iowa 259, at 264.

8 Caster v. McClellan, 132 Iowa 502.

Noble v. The State, 1 G. Greene 325, at 330.

10 Code of 1897, Sec. 48.

11 Noble v. The State, 1 G. Greene 325; Dilger v. Palmer, 60 Iowa 117; Williams v. Poor, 65 Iowa 410.

12 Dilger v. Palmer, 60 Iowa 117, at 130.

13 The State v. Smith, 46 Iowa 670, at 673; State v. Lightfoot, 107 Iowa 344, at 349.

14 Ripley v. Gifford, 11 Iowa 367, at 368, 369.

15 Burlington Cedar Rapids & Northern R. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa 312; Duncombe v. Prindle, 12 Iowa 1; Smith v. Railroad Commissioners, 86 Iowa 202, at 207-211; Kenyon v. Cedar Rapids, 124 Iowa 195.

16 Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Gleason, 56 Iowa 47, at 49.

17 Rohlf v. Kasemeier, 140 Iowa 182, at 187; McCarney v. Bettendorf Axle Co., 156 Iowa 418, at 426.

18 The State v. Campbell, 76 Iowa 122, at 125.

19 The State v. Wignall, 150 Iowa 650, at 657; McCarney v. Bettendorf Axle Co., 156 Iowa 418, at 426, 427.

20 McCarney v. Bettendorf Axle Co., 156 Iowa 418, at 425.

21 District Township of Dubuque v. Dubuque, 7 Iowa 262, at 276.

22 The State v. Smith, 46 Iowa 670, at 673.

23 The State v. Myers, 10 Iowa 448; Oltrogge v. Schutte, 51 Iowa 229; Williams v. Poor, 65 Iowa 410.

24 Grunewald v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa 222, at 224, 225; Grimmell v. Des Moines, 57 Iowa 144, at 146; Haerther v. Mohr, 114 Iowa 636, at 637; Code of 1897, Sec. 48, Par. 3.

25 Code of 1897, Sec. 48, Par. 2.

26 Smith v. Brantz, 127 Iowa 115, at 117; Bailies v. City of Des Moines, 127 Iowa 124; Jewell v. Board of Trustees, 113 Iowa 47.

27 The State v. Santee, 111 Iowa 1, at 5, 6; Jewell v. Board of Trustees, 113 Iowa 47; Bailies v. City of Des Moines, 127 Iowa 124.

28 The State v. Carson, 147 Iowa 561, at 563; State v. White, 45 Iowa 325; State v. Hockett, 70 Iowa 442, at 453; The State v. Santee, 111 Iowa 1, at 3, 4.

29 District Township of Dubuque v. Dubuque, 7 Iowa 262, at 275, 276; Rohlf v. Kasemeier, 140 Iowa 182, at 185, 186.

30 Crabell v. Wapello Coal Co., 68 Iowa 751.

31 Hunt v. Farmers' Insurance Co., 67 Iowa 742.

32 Grimes v. Legion of Honor, 97 Iowa 315, at 324.

33 Goerdt v. Trumman, 118 Iowa 207, at 209; Kenyon v. Cedar Rapids, 124 Iowa 195, at 198; Eckerson v. Des Moines, 137 Iowa 452; The State v. Bank, 139 Iowa 338; McKinnon v. Sanders, 161 Iowa 555, at 559; The State v. Read, 162 Iowa 572, at 577.

34 Keokuk v. Scroggs, 39 Iowa 447, at 451, 452; Burlington v. Leebrick, 43 Iowa 252, at 258; Banker's Mutual Casualty Co. v. First National Bank, 131 Iowa 456, at 462; McBride v. Des Moines City Railway Co., 134 Iowa 398, at 405.

35 McCain v. Des Moines, 128 Iowa 331, at 333; Duncombe v. Prindle, 12 Iowa 1, at 12.

36 Windsor v. Des Moines, 110 Iowa 175, at 180.

37 Lederer & Strauss v. Colonial Investment Co., 130 Iowa 157, at 158; Windsor v. Des Moines, 110 Iowa 175, at 180.

38 Laws of Iowa, 1902, pp. 98, 99, 1907, p. 166, 1911, pp. 177, 178, 1913, pp. 163-165; Schultz v. Parker, 158 Iowa 42, at 48, 49.