...am not disposed to question the first rule laid down by Vat tel, and so universally approved, that "it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation"; but his fifteenth and sixteenth rules of construction have been equally approved, which are as follows:...

...least, elementary. As stated by Mr. Justice MARSHALL in Gilbert v. Dutruit, supra, quoting Vattel: " It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When the meaning is evident, and leads to no absurd conclusions, there can be no reason for refusing...

...universally recognized as law,1 (emphasis ours) : "'The first general maxim of interpretation is, That it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When a deed is worded in clear and precise terms, when its meaning is evident and leads to no absurd...

...sought, first of all, in the words employed; and, if the words are free from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly, and distinctly the sense...the words have a definite and precise meaning, to go elsewhere in search of conjecture, in order to restrict or extend the meaning. Statutes and contracts...

...interpretation of statutes : "First of all * * * if the words are free from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly and distinctly the sense...allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. The statute itself furnishes the best means of its own exposition." Under our statute, unless otherwise...

...proposition, properly understood, is not in conflict with another, which is, that, in the words of Vattel, " It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation." Vattel, Law of Nations, b. 17, § 263. And see ante, § 72. The meaning of which is, that a passage...

...may have been or how long continued, for it can only be resorted to in aid of interpretation, and ' it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation.' If there were ambiguity or doubt, then such a practice, begun so early and continued so long, would...

...«maxim of interpretation equally by civilians and -by writers on international law. «Vattel says that it is not allowable to inter<pret what has no need of interpretation. If the «meaning be evident and the conclusion not ab<surd, you have no right to look beyond or «beneath...

...to the interpretation of words alleged to be libelous or slanderous. J udge Allen says (p. 601) : " It is not allowable to interpret what has no need...the words have a definite and precise meaning, to go elsewhere in search of conjecture in order to. restrict or extend the meaning. Statutes and contracts...

...introduced to be used only in case his first general rule does not apply. This proposition is that "it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation." Now, these rules of the treaty are the deliberate and careful expression of the will of the two nations...