Comparing a statute to prior law often only raises questions requiring further evidence.

Evidence

Orthodox legal doctrine answers the opening question in the last paragraph in the affirmative, although everyday practice is sometimes forgetful of the dictates of doctrine. To say that the prior law is to be taken into account, however, is only to indicate a direction of inquiry. Sometimes the mere comparison of the new statute with the preexisting law yields an irresistible inference as to what the purpose of the statute was. But often the comparison does no more than raise questions and indicate possibilities. What then are wanted are contemporaneous explanations to help in resolving Such explanations may be provided simply by common knowledge of the history of the times. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1715

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes the two evidentiary levels: direct inference from prior-law comparison versus the need for extrinsic contemporaneous explanations.
• XREF: connects to: Prior law context is always relevant to interpreting a statute’s purpose. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1713; Legal inductions represent probabilities rather than absolute truths. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 550

Broader Connections

• Legal inductions represent probabilities rather than absolute truths. #corroborates (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 550