Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-04-02

force.
U3N J. Oh Rep. 40, and cases
cited }
\ general statute without negative
words viii not repeal the particular
provisions Of a former unless the
two acts ara itreconCjlably inconsist-
ent. State Ex Rel Dunkle VS.. Beard,
FL New. 2IS.
The repeal. total or partial. Of
stat ,tes by implication is not favored.
AS to this rule there can be no differ
erce Oh opinion and further authorities
need not be cited,
Under the well established rules for
the construction of statutes has the
provision of Sec. 5 of the Act Of 1889
which allows the Clerk compensation
as Reporter Of the decisions of the
Supreme Court been repealed This
is the vital question in this case.
From the organization ofthe State gov
ernment up to 1875 the Off &c of Clerk of
the Supreme Court was on the fee
system. For certain specified acts to
be performed he was allowed certain
specified fees. BY the Statutes of 1875,
81 he vas provided with a salary and
it was provided that the fees collected
by the Clerk thereafter shall be paid
into the State Treasury" By all Act,
Statutes 1881, 40, his salary was re-
duced and fixed at $4,000 per year. on
and after the first day Of January,
1888, and thus the salary remained
UP to January, 1895. BY the Act en-
titled An Act to provide for the pub
LEGATION and distribution of Nevada
Reports" approved March I, 1898.
70, SUPRA, IL addition TO his said
salary of $4,000, he was allowed for
compensation as Reporter Of decisions
of the Supreme Court the sum of Six
Hundred Dollars per year. 1t is evil
dent that the salary was given him
as compensation for performing The
specific duties for which he had for
meJly been allowed certain fees, and
that the compensation as said reporter
was above him for the specific work
of preparing the decisions OF the
Supreme Court for publication, which
work does not come within or belong
to the class of duties properly per
tanning to the Office of Clerk of the
Supreme Court. 1t requires particu-
lar skill and legal ability, which the
class of duties belonging to the
Clerks office does not require, ard
evidently for this reason the Legisla-
ture authorized the Clerk to employ a
competent attorney to assist him in
this work, which he did, and to pay
for such assistance the Legislature
made an appropriation for each
volume published since the work was
! placed in the hands of the Clerk.
The Act of 1898 SUPRA, which
makes the Secretary of State ex-ofiCio
Clerk Of the Supreme Court, in effect
abolished the Twenty-four Hundred
Dollar salary of the Clerk.
That result was evidently intended
by the Legislature.
We are of the opinion that that re-
suit was the only result intended to
be accomplished SO far as reducing
the expenses OF compesnations Incl
dent to the Clerk Office was con.
cerned. We do not think that it car
be reasonably inferred that the Legis
lature by abolishing a salary which
had been provided i'll lieu of forme
fees for performing certain specih,
duties imposed upon the Clerk b,
law intended thereby to also abolish
the compensation allowed him for per
forming certain other specified dutie
imposed upon him by another law
the latter duties being no part of til
the duties for the performance c
which the salary had been given.
We fail to find any conflict between
the provision N question of Sectio
5 of the Act of 1883 and ary provisio
of any other act.
5 1t is argued by the Attorney Gen
eral that: The salary of the Secrt
tary of State after January 1, 199.
was by the act of the Legislature
the State of Nevada, approved Marc
I FL, 1891, fixed at $4,000, and it wa
not within the power of the Legi