Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 718
Harmony. The phrase "in harmony with" is synonymous with
"in agreement, conformity, or accordance with."
[Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 718]
Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895):
"We are bound to interpret
the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it
was adopted."
[Mattox v. U.S.,
156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895)]
50 American Jurisprudence, 1st, Statutes §563:
"Harmony.
Preserving a statute or part of a statute against repeal by another
statute or part of a statute by construction which reconciles the statutes
and parts of one another so that effect may be given to all provisions."
[50 American Jurisprudence, 1st Statutes §363]
Resort to Constitutional or Legislative Debates, Committee Reports, Journals, etc., as an aid
in Construction of Constitution or Statutes., 70 American Law Reports 5, 22-25:
"Rejection
by the legislature of certain terms in a statute has been regarded as
conclusively showing an intent that the act as passed should not embrace
the matter referred to. There is not doubt that where the language
of a statute or constitutional provision is not plain, and different
meanings may plausibly be attributed thereto, one of the most satisfactory
methods of ascertaining the intention of the framers of the instrument
is by resort to the amendments and changes thereof, as shown by the
official records; and consideration of such extrinsic material is not
open to the objections, subsequently discussed, to resort to debates
or explanatory statements of a measure in the course of its passage
through a legislature or constitutional convention. The rejection
of proposed amendments may be the most significant in determining the
meaning of an uncertain statutory or constitutional provision."
[Resort to Constitutional
or Legislative Debates, Committee Reports, Journals, etc., as aid in
Construction of Constitution or Statute., 70 American Law Reports
5, 22-25]
"But
it is clearly the result that the proposition and the contentions under
it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to
destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions
of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable
conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned.
Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not
come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution
to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the
result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax
not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity,
thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than
was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of
simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing
power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish,
would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system
and multiply confusion."
[Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1916)]