The record-union., 1896-05-10

ton.
The defendants, j. r. Browne l. j..
Simmons, George Anderson, B. L. ray
lor and Frank Gregory, were subpenaed
to appear before the Grand Jury to tes-
tify as witnesses, and pursuant to the
command of the subpoena did appear be-
fore it, and in response to questions pro-
pounded to them by the District At
torney and members of the Grand Jury,
testified to facts pertaining to the sub
ject matter upon which the indictment
was based, and for this reason it is con-
tended by counsel for defendants that
the indictment is void and should be set
aside. Section 6f of the Penal Code
provides that mo person, otherwise
competent as a witness, shall be dls-
qualified or excused from teStlfylng
concerning any of the offenses enumera-
ted and prescribed in this title, on the
ground that such testimony may GRIM
mate himself; but no prosecution can
afterwards be had against such wit
ness for any such offense concerning
which he testified for the prosecution. y
But it is contended by the District At
torney that said section is repealed by
the enactment of the statute usually
known as the Purity of Election Act, "
or, at least, that it is imperative so far
as the said Act is concerned, or so far
as it may conflict with the provisions of
said Act which he claims it does.
That the indictment was found under
the provisions of Section % of the "Pur-
lty OF Election Act" which provides
that Every person charged with the
performance of any duty under the pro-
visions Of any law of this State relating
to elections, who willfully neglects or
refuses to perform it, or who, in his
official capacity, knowingly and fraudu-
lently acts in contravention or viola
ton of any of the provisions of such
laws, is, unless a different punishment
for such acts or omissions is provided
by the code of this State, punishable by
fine not exceeding $1,000, or by i'm
prisonment in the State Prison not eX-
ceeding five years, or by both"
Section 81 of the same Act provides
that "a person offending against any
provision of Sections 10, 20, 21, %, %,
26, y. %, 80 and 81 of this Act is a
competent witness against another per-
son so offending, and may be compelled
to attend and testify upon any trial,
hearing, proceeding or lawful investi-
cation or judicial proceeding in the
same manner as any other person.
But the testimony so given shall not be
used in any prosecution or proceeding.
civil or criminal, against the person SO
testifying.
A person so testifying shall not there
after be liable to indictment or present
ment by information, nor prosecution
or punishment for the offense with ref
ference to which his testimony was
given. and may plead or prove the CIV
ing of testimony accordingly in bar
of such indictment, information or
prosecution.
1t will be observed that the provis-
ions of Section 81 do not apply to Sec
ton %, and therefore if Section GA Of
the Penal Code is repealed by the pro-
visions Of the Purity of Election Act" "
or if it is imperative so far as said
Act is concerned, or is in conflict there
with, then persons violating the provis-
ions of Section 20 could-in the absence
of any constitutional objection-be
compelled to testify to facts upon which
indictments against them might be
based, in which case they would not
have immunity from prosecution under
such Indictment. 1t is further con-
tended by the District Attorney that
because the crimes defined in Section
- are not included in Section 81, it was
the intention of the Legislature not
to allow immunity to persons Offend
ing against the provisions of Section
-, and that the Purity of Election
Act" is general statute upon the sub
ject matter of offenseS against the cleo
tive franchise, and as such 1t repeals
and supersedeS all other provisions of
the statute upon the same subject, and
that the rule is, that when the Legis-
lature makes a revision of a particu-
lar statute, and frames general stat
ute upon the subject matter and,
when from the framework of such re-
visory Act 1t is apparent that the Leg
islature designed a complete scheme
for such matter, that this Is a legisla-
tive declaration that whatever is en-
braced in the new law shall prevail, and
whatever is excluded is ignored, and in
support of this contention, among other
authorities, cites Frazer VS.. Alexan-
der, 10 Cal. 141 in which case the Su-
preme Court said: "As we said in State
VS.. Conklin, 10 Cal JiS when the Leg
islature makes a revision of the par
ticular statute and frames a general
statute upon the subject matter, and
from the framework Of the Act it is ap-
parent that the Legislature designed
complete scheme for this matter, this
is legislative declaration that what
ever is embraced in the new law
shall prevail, and whatever is ex-
cluded is ignored In that case
it will be observed that It was 'ap-
parent that the County Government
Act superseded and repealed the Act
of 1874 (Which was the question under
consideration by the COURT, because the
court said such Act Of 1874
is inconsistent with the County Gov
ernment Act and is therefore repealed
by Section 1S4 thereof
Is there any inconsistency between
Sections II or GA of the Penal Code and
the provisions of the Purity of Elec-
ton Act? and was it the apparent in
tention of the Legislature to repeal
either Of the sections, or that the 'Pur-
ity of Election Act" should supersede
all other laws relating to elections?
Section % of the Purity of Election
Act" does not amend or repeal Section
IL of the Penal Code; but is, in terms,
simply a re-enactment of that section.
in exactly the same language, withou {
the change of a sentence or a word.
There can be no question but that there
is the most perfect harmony between
Sections IL and 64 of the Penal Code
and the provisions of the Purity of
Election Act" and unless it is appar-
ent that it was the intention of the
Legislature that this Act should super
sede all other laws relating to the cleo