Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-07-13


that are to govern. It clearly intends
only to increase the rate of taxation, fol
It declares this to be its object. It doe
not say that it is its only object but i
declares no other, and no other can b'
implied.
In the case cited above, the Supreme
Court said that the question whether
because q later act in regard to convey
auces Of real estate, intended as q reVi
/ sion Of prior statutes, made no provision
authorizing q mayor Of city to takt
tbe Acknowledgement of q marTied wo
man, that provision in the former ael
was repealed by it. In this respects
the Court said, " it is clear there is nc
repugnaney between the two acts. The
4 two provisions may well stand together,
the latter as cumulative to the former.
There is no express repeal, no re-
pugnaucy nor, on this point,
are there any words of the latter act,
which show an intention to make its
provisions exclusive"
The Court quoted from the decision in
WoodU. The United States, Is FeteTsi 1852,
where the same Court said, Of prior
statute "That it has not been ex-
pressIy,- or by direct terms, repealed, is
admitted; aud the question resolves it
self into the more narrow inquiry,
whether it has been repealed By neees-
sary implication. We say by necessary
implication, for It Is not sufficient to
establish that subsequent 5aaCs coVer some
or eUen all the cases prOUided for By it )
for they may be merely Affirmative, or
cumulative, or auxiliary. But there
must be a positive repugnaney between
the provisions OF the new laws and those
Of the old; and eUen then the old Iaag is
repealed By implication, only pro tanto, to
the extent Of the repagHaacy.
And the court cited and adopted these
words Of the Court Of Appeals Of KEN
lucky: 4" Virtual repeats are not favored
by Courts. A body Of acts ought to be
held as one act, so far as they do not con
hict with each other"
The acts Of 1865 and 1865 are to be con-
sidered as one act, as if the act Of 1865
were repeated in ali its words, with no
change except the increased rate of tax
alton.
In Canal Company Y. Rail-ToGd Com
pang gill & John. 152, the Court of
Appeals OF Maryland held that al stat
ates IN paTi BIateria are construed as one
law; that repesis of statutes by impli-
cation are things disfavored by law, and
never allowed Of, but when the incoDsis-
tency and repugnsncy are plain and un-
avoidable;" that off laws and statutes
seem contrary to one another, yet If by
Interpretation they may stand together,
they shall stand; and when two laws
only 30 far disagree or differ, as that by
any other construction they may both
stand together, the rule that subsequent
laws abrogate prior and contrsriant
laws, does not apply, and the last law
is no repeal OF the former :" and, that,
when It is msBifestly the intention Of
the Legislature, that subsequent act
shall not control the provisions of for
mer act, the subsequent act shall not
have such operation, even though the
words Of it taken strictly and grammati-
cslly, would repeal the fsrmer act"
These principles, the Court said, had
been recognized and adopted by the
Curtis. from the time Of Role, PyoaOden
and Coke, to this day. And they cited W.
Hdms Us. Priteh0rd, Term. Rep. 2,
where the question was, whether a house
built on land recovered from the Thames,
and by the prior law exempted from all
taxes and assessments whatever, was
liable TO be assessed 70 the general land
tax imposed by later act. Lord K en-
yon held that though the words of the
later act we're sufficiently large to subject
the land, yet that the former act exempt
ing it was not repealed, on the ground
that it was not considered to have been
the intention Of the Legislature to re-
peal it.
In Beols y. Hale, 4 Hotgagd 81, the Su-
prenne Court OF the United States said,
" It is well-settled principle of con-
structioD, that statutes which
apparently conflict with each other are
to be reconciled, as far as may be, on any
fair hypothesis, and validity given to
each, If it can be and is necessary to con-
form 10 ussges under them, or to pre-
serve the titles Of property undisturbed.
A second law on the same SUBJ
ject does not repeal former one, with
out q repeating clause or negative words,
unless 90 clearly repagRa7t as to imply a
.negatiDe."
IN BOl0eR vs. Lease, 5 Hill, 226, the
Supreme Court Of New York said: ut
is but reasonable to conclude that the
Legislature, In passing this tatute, did not
intend to interfere with or sbrogate any
former Law relating TO the same matter,
unless the repugnancy between the two
is Unreconcileable. Hence q repeal by
implication is not favored on the con-
trary, courts are bound to uphold the
prior law If the two acts may subsist to-
gether." 1t is equally reasonable TO sup
pose that the Legislature intends to re-
peal 8 former law only 50 far and ia such
respects as il declares its intention, when
it does 30 at all.
OF course that is a question of great IL
terest and Importance here, especially to
the consumer, who in the end pays the
tax on goods purchased by him, as part
Of the price enhanced for it. For II the
sanae goods are sold three or four times
over, after they come into the State in
the hands Of the importer, the tai viii