Mimamsashastrasarvasva 4.24

4.24

na hi sarvadharmatve pramāṇāntaramapekṣitam | vidhineva sāmānyataḥ
pravṛttena tatsiddheḥ | vyavasthāvādinā tu vidherviśeṣaghaṭitatva vācyam
na ca tatra pramāṇamasti, na vā sambhavati sarveṣvācaritṛṣu anugatasyānācaritṛbhyaśca vyāvṛttasya jātiguṇasaṃsthānāderdurniṃrūpatvāt
prācyādisamākhyāpi vyabhicāriṇī nirdiṣṭairapi kaiścidanācaraṇāt
ciravinirgataputrapautrāṇāṃ tadācaraṇadarśanācceti | tasmādviśeṣasya
niṣpramāṇakatvāt durniṃrūpatvācca sarvadharmatvamācārāṇāṃ smṛtīnāṃ
ceti siddham
6 sādhupadaprayuktyadhikaraṇam
prayogotpattyaśāstratvācchabdeṣu na vyavasthā syāt

For in the case of being a duty for all, no other means of knowledge is required, since that is established by the injunction itself operating generally. But one who maintains restriction must state that the injunction is qualified by a distinction.
And on that point there is no means of knowledge, nor is it possible, because a universal, quality, configuration, etc. that is common to all practitioners and excluded from non-practitioners is difficult to ascertain.
Even a designation such as “easterners” is deviant, because it is not practiced even by some who are so designated,
and because it is seen to be practiced by sons and grandsons who have long departed. Therefore, because a distinction lacks proof and is difficult to ascertain, it is established that customs and Smṛtis are duties for all.
6. The topic of the use of correct words:
“Because of the absence of an injunction for production in usage, there can be no restriction regarding words.”