Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-09-21

which was first approved by the governor
-tnough loose inference may be drawn
act was communicated to the senate prior
TO his approval of the revision. - Both
the Revised Statutes as a whole and the spe-
clal ACT In question were, however. approved
py the governor on the same day, May Is.
1916, and which was first actually passed
oy the legislature or first approved by the
governor, We do not deem at all material
20 the discovery Of the legislative intent.
IL is suflciently certain that both we're
practically under the legislative consiGera-
t1cn at the same time. and WERE properly
speaking. contemporaneous acts. and
should be construed as such in arriving al
the intention of the legislature
In the case of Payton VS. Moseley G
Nonroe), the court of appeals of Ken
said: - W. N'''
1t is true. as observed by the court be-
low. the expressions of this latter act are
very ofodo' ana II 1t had not passed at the
s. Sc me session with the former. il might, by
the ordinary rules of construction. he he'll,
70 De repeal of the former pro tanto.
Two Acts to BE Read Topeth..
But with regard to acts of the same
session. we apprehend tina. the rules OF
construction are somewhat different. When
Trey are compared together, they ough.
to be construed as one act on the sam.
SUBJECT and the presumption of so suddei
= cnehge or revolution in the minds of
me legislature ought not to be INDUCED
LHefe ought to be an express repeal. O.
nro.,t, sou'e inconsistency between the two
provls,ons. to authorize a court to sa,
that the latter had repealed the former
ana the supreme court of the state of
CahIornia, by Judge Sanderson, in People
conflict: Both acts were passei mon ~.
same day and relate to the same sub,erf
after They are. therefore. according I,
4 wen settled rule of interpretat ton, to %,
act" pa" :" VI .ne sahe
Section % and section 422s and amend
ems are not coextensive in scope; in pur-
lose: therefore, they may be the compile
mehtS OF each other. One prescrihes ;.
rule, the other the condition upon whicf
ana the agency by which il NAV be sus
pended. Each therefore. has its purpose
i ennile ana consistent. Section 1923 nigh,
De proViso to section % and is in Off,,
Haoe SO by the suspension act and a,
such proVlso 1t is certainly not repugnani
10 section y The latter has its opera
I.on-commencing with its passage con
tlnung until the conditions of secf'op ,.,,>
occur ana the President act on account q,
Inem reslming again if the reciprocal ex-
enpeons OF foreign nations be withdrawn
Examples of this are familiar in .ur
legislation The provision in the Dina,ex
oll TOT reciprocity of trade is such an ex
ample. Under that the duties of the no,
10y pe changed An example not so di-
rect, put OF the same principle is found in
the case OF Russell agt Williams l0; Il 8
IL would seem from the import of lang,lass
that statue imposing duties on articles
Mas exclusive OF prior ones, regular or dis
eliminating. whether they were imp,rted
from or were the product of one country
OF another. 1t was held, nevertheless. in
Russei agt Williams that discriminating
uuty on the products Of countries east of
the Cape of Good Hope. when imiorted
from places west of it, was not repealed by
subsequent acts, though not repea ted in
them or mentioned by them. In this case.
FRI how
tween commercial regulation and nro.
VISIONS Tor revenue duties, but the principIe
OF the case is that where there is differen,e
IN purpose legislative provisions may be
niuepenoent. But the rule of repeal by i'm
plicatlon does not require us to find indie
pendence. If there is not irreconcilabIe
connict the laws may exist together AS
we nave already seen. there is Certainly no
lrreconcllable conflict. Even if there was
more conflict in their language-more in
their purpose-this would nave to yield to
the Interpretation of the time and manner
OF thelr passage: The suspension act was
reported TO the House of Representatives
by the same committee which reported the
Dingley bill-was considered and passed
whlIe that act was In memory. 1t passed
tne senate while the Dingley bill was
pending in consideration, and was ap-
proved by the President on the same day
the Dingley bill was A knowledge of its
relations to that bill and it's effect ON it
must therefore be attributed to the l..is-
lature. 1t may be 1t was the latter bill, for
the Congressional Record shows that the
Presidents approval of it was commune
Gated to the Congress subsequently 20 that
of the other.
Even more extreme position might be
taken. 1t was held in Mead agt BagnaIl
and others, Is Wis, 156, that Where the
provisions Of statute which relates 20 a
particular class Of cases are repugnant to
those OF another statute approved the
same day, which is of more general char
acter. the former must prevail as to the
particular class of cases therein referred
to- See also Endlich on the Interpreta-
ton of Statutes, sec. PIG, and cases cited
1t follows. therefore. that section 422S
was not repealed by section %. and that
the merchandise of both inquiries is not to
be subjected to discriminating duty