The times., 1897-09-22

following, to wit: Provided, that the
President is authorized 20 suspend in part
the operation Of sections 4219 and 25O2
50 that foreign vessels from a country i'm
posing partial discriminating tonnage ,iuties
upon American vessels. or partial discrin-
mating import duties upon American
merchandise, may enjoy in our ports
the Identical privileges which the same
class of American vessels and merchandise
may enjoy in said foreign countrv.'''
II VIII be observed that II recognizes
the existence of section 1925, and amen DIS
1t and enlarges the Presidents power BY
422S that could only be exercised when
no discriminating duties were imposed or
laid on American vessels The amend
ment provides that the power may be
exercised to meet and respond TO partial
discriminating duties as weIl-reciprocatin
the exact privilege, though less than total
exemptions.
This act is somewhat confused byits ref
erences. 1t refers TO Section 2502 OF the
Revised Statutes. That is the same in
words as Section / 4 of the act OF $50
tthe Wilson bilD, and this is expressly
repealed by Section "a OF the DingIey
bill while Section 2502 is not mentioned
but its provisions in exact words are car
Tled into section y. But Notwithstanding
this confusion the act does recognize the
existence of and extends Section 1925
and IT also recognizes Section 2502 What
Is the effect Of this? The act and the
Dingley bill We're passed on the same day
and do not think the order Of passage
is important if they can be reconciIed.
(Crane vs. Reeder, % Mich, p 33I.) If
either repealS the other 1t is only by
implication. There are no words of ex-
press repeal. The rule of Implied repeals
is wei established by long line OF cases.
There must be more than difference
there must be irreconcilable conflict (Red
Rock VS.. Henry, los U. s., 596, and cases
cited), and 1.-THE presumption is stronger
against implied repeals where provisions
supposed to conflict are in the same act
or were passed at nearly tic same time"
Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Sec
tion 1853; see also EndIich on the Inter
probation of Statutes Section 49,
Let us apply this rule.
Sec. % and Sec. 1928 are both CONNER
cial Tegula tions, and what the effect OF
Sec. % would be on the other if sub
sequent ia time, and not accompanied by
iegislativ Interpretation, is easily per
ceived TO be different when contempor-
aneous in time and so accompanied In
Crane V. Reeder tsupra) two acts passed
at the same session of the legislature Were
under considera ton. The court said, speak
ing by Cbristiancy, :, 's It is not
possible TO ascertain with certainty Which
was flrst passed by that body (sena tie }, nor
which was first approved by the governor
though loose inference may be drawn That
the governors approval of the special act
was communicated to the senate prior to
his approval OF the revision. Both
the revised statutes, as a whole, aud the
special act In question We're, however, a q
proved by the governor on the same day,
May :, IS45; and which was first actually
pa ssed by the Legislature or first approved
by the governor we do not deem at all
ma teTial 10 he discovery of the legis! ltive
intent. IL is sufficiently certain that both
Were practically under the legislative con
sideration at the same time, and were,
properly speaking, contemporaneous acts,
and should be construed as such in arriving
at the intention Of the Legislature
In the case OF Payton VS.. Moseley
t3 Monroe) the court of appeals of Ken
tucky, speaking by Judge Mills Of two
acts, said:
1T is true, as observed br tie court
below, the expressions of this latter act
are very broad, and il ii had not passed
al the same session with the former, it
might, blythe ordinary rules of construction,
be held TO be repeal of the former,
pro tanto.
But with regard to acts OF the same
session, We apprehend that the rules OF
construction are somewhat different. When
they are compared together, they ought To
be construed as one act on the same