On the other hand, the dispute may turn on a passage of the law which is clear in one sense and doubtful in another. The son of a harlot shall not address the people. A woman who had a son became a prostitute. The youth is forbidden to address the people. Here there is no doubt about the son of one who was a prostitute before his birth, but it is doubtful whether the law applies to the case of one born before his mother became a prostitute.

Another question which is not infrequently raised is as to the interpretation of the law forbidding an action to be brought twice on the same dispute, the problem being whether the word twice refers to the prosecutor or the prosecution. Such are the points arising out of the obscurity of the law. A second form of question turns on some passage where the meaning is clear. Those who have given exclusive attention to this class of question call it the basis concerned with the obvious expression of the law and its intention. In such circumstances one party will rest their case on the letter, the other on the intention of the law.

There are three different methods in which we may combat the letter. The first comes into play where it is clear that it is impossible always to observe the letter of the law. Children shall support their parents under penalty of imprisonment. It is clear, in the first place, that this cannot apply to an infant. At this point we shall turn to other possible exceptions and distinguish as follows. Does this apply to everyone who refuses to support his parent? Has this particular individual incurred the penalty by this particular act?

The second arises in scholastic themes where no argument can be drawn from the particular law, but the question is concerned solely with the subject of the dispute. A foreigner who goes up on to the wall shall be liable to capital punishment. The enemy had scaled the wall and were driven back by a foreigner. His punishment is demanded.