The times., 1897-09-22
Consultation at Office or by
Letter Free.

subject; and the presumption df SO sudden
change or revoiutionin the minds Of the
legislature ought not TO be INDUCED There
/ ought TO be an express repeal, or an alb
/ solute inconsistency between the two pro-
visions, to authorize court to say that
the latter had repealed the former
Ana the supreme court Of the State of
California, by Judge SanderSon in People
VS.. jackson, said OF two acts claimed to
conflict: Both acts We're passed upon the
same day and relate 10 the same subject
matter. They are, therefore, according to
WelEsettled rule Of interpretation To be
read together, as If parts of the same act;
section - and section 1928 and amend
ments are not co-eXtcnsive in scope; in pur-
pose, therefore, they may be the connie
ments or each other. One preScribes q rule
the other the condition upon which and
the agency by which it may be suspended
Each, therefore, has its purpose definite
ana consistent. Section APPS might be a
provlso TO section %, and is In effect made
50 Dy the suspension act, and az such proyiso
~ Is certainly not repugnant TO section %
Inc latter has its operation commencing
with It's passage, Continuing until the CON
ditions of section 422S occur and the Pres
ident act on account OF them, resuming
again II the reciprocal exemptions OF for
eign nations be withdrawn.
LNaHples or this are familiar in our
legislation. The provision in the DinCley
Dill Tor reciprocity of trade is such an
example, Under that the duties OF the
act may be changed. An example not so
direct, but of the same principle is found
In the case of Russell VS.. Williams LOG
U S 1t would seem from the import OF
language III at statute imposing duties on
articles was exclusive OF prior ones regu-
lar or discriminating, whether they were
imported iro m or We're the product of one
nSAt1rat atrx
less, In Russei Y. Williams that discrimi-
mating duty on the products OF countries
east or the Cape of Good Hope, when i'm
ported from places west of it, was not
repeated by subsequent acts, though not
repeated in them or mentioned by them.
In this case 1t is true there was the distinc-
tion between commercial reguIa ton
ana provisions for revenue duties, but the
principle or the case is that where there
is difference In purpose, legislative pro-
visions may be independent But the rule
OF repeal by Implication does not re-
quire us to find independence.
III there Is not irreconcilable conflict
the laws may exist together. As we have
already seen, there is certainly no irrecon-
cilable conflict. Even if there was rriore
conflict In their language more in their
purpose-this would have to yield to the
Interpretation Of the time and manner of
their passage. The suspension act was
reported to the House of Representatives
by the same committee which reported the
Dingley bill-was considered and passed
while that act was in memory. 1t passed
The Senate while the Dingley bill was pend
ing In consideration, and was approved by
the President on the same day the Dingley Y
bill was. knowledge OF its relations TO
that bill an d its effect on it must, there
fore, be attributed to the legislature. 1t
may be 1t was the later bill, for the Con-
gresstonal Record shows that the Presi
dents approval of 1t was communicated to
the Congress subsequently to that of the
other.
Even more extreme position might be
taken. 1t was held in Mead VS. Bag
nall and Others, 8 Wis, 56, that Where
the provisions Of statute which relates
to a particular class OF cases are repug
nant to those of another statute approved
| the same day, which is OF a more general
| character, the former must prevail as tC
| the particular class of cases therein re
| ferred to- See also Endlich on the In
| depreciation OF Statutes section 26, an,
cases cited 1t follows, therefore that sec
| tlon 422S was not repealed by section %
| and that the merch andise of both inquire
| is not to be subjected TO discriminatin.
| duty.
/ philaHaIyeIlfa I'D lk,x, mn x-fo q