Page 351 - Q23 - รวมผลงานทางวิชาการของอาจารย์ธานินทร์ เล่มที่ 1 สมบูรณ์

330 √«¡º≈ß“π∑“ß«‘™“°“√¢Õß»“ μ√“®“√¬å∏“π‘π∑√å °√—¬«‘‡™’¬√

∫“ß°√≥’‡√“Õ“®«‘π‘®©—¬‰¥â®“°≈’≈“‚«À“√∑’˪√“°Ø„π‡√◊ËÕßπ—ÈπÊ ‡Õß«à“„§√‡ªìπºŸâ‡√’¬∫‡√’¬ß.
(ÒÙˆ)
‚«À“√°ÆÀ¡“¬¡’¢âÕæ‘®“√≥“‡ªìπ摇»…·≈–‚¥¬‡©æ“–‡ªìπ‡Õπ°ª√–°“√. Õ¬à“߉√°Áμ“¡,
‡ªìπ∑’ˬա√—∫°—π∑—Ë«‰ª«à“‚«À“√°ÆÀ¡“¬∑’Ë¥’‰¡à®”‡ªìπμâÕß¡’§«“¡‰æ‡√“–‡©‘¥©—π‡™àπ

¿“…“„π«√√≥§¥’, ‡æ√“–«√√≥§¥’π—Èπ¡ÿàߪ√– ߧå„π‡√◊ËÕß √â“ߧ«“¡∑√“∫´÷Èßμ√÷ß„®„Àâ·°à

ºŸâ„ΩÉ√ π‘¬¡„π‡™‘ßÕ—°…√‡ªì𠔧—≠. à«π°ÆÀ¡“¬π—Èπ‡ªìπ‡√◊ËÕߢÕß°“√ÕÕ°§” —Ëß·≈–
¢âÕ∫—ߧ—∫„Àâ∫ÿ§§≈ªØ‘∫—μ‘μ“¡. ¿“…“°ÆÀ¡“¬®÷ß«à“¥â«¬‡√◊ËÕ߇À≈à“π’È, À√◊Õ‡ªìπ‡√◊ËÕß°“√

°≈à“«Õâ“ß, ‚μâ·¬âß, ∫√√¬“¬À√◊Õ«‘π‘®©—¬„π‡√◊ËÕß ‘∑∏‘, Àπâ“∑’Ë, ·≈–§«“¡√—∫º‘¥¢Õß

(ÒÙˆ)
∑à“π»“ μ√“®“√¬å·°≈π«‘≈ «‘≈‡≈’¬¡ å (Glanville Williams) ·Ààß¡À“«‘∑¬“≈—¬‡§¡∫√‘¥®å°≈à“««à“:
ùThe ordinary man is not usually troubled with these perplexities. It does not
matter to the seaman whether an anchor is or is not called part of a vessel.
A chemist does not need to answer the question, yes or no, does a rolled-gold

watch come within the description gold. Biologists may find difficulty with their
classification, but nothing turns on the question whether they classify a creature
under one head or another: it is simply a question of verbal expediency. With

the lawyer it is different. The lawyer, like the theologian, is faced with a number
of texts that he regards as authoritative and that are supposed to settle any
question that can conceivably arise. Each text was once drawn up by someone
who presumably meant something by it; but once the document has left its
authorûs hands, it is the document that matters, not any unexpressed meaning that

still remains in the authorûs mind. For the lawyer the words of the document are
authoritative as words and there is no possibility of obtaining further information
from the author, either because the author is dead or because of the rules of

evidence precluding reference to him.û: ùLanguage of the lawû, Law Quarterly
Review, April, 1945.