The record-union., 1899-08-04

ipal Government Act as to the powers
of the Board of Education in relation
to the government of high schools In
municipalities of the fifth class re-
pealed and revoked by the general law
when said cities have not proceeded
under said general law, or can the two
Acts be read together and both per-
mitted to stand?
In the case Of Bateman vs. Colgan.
Ill Cal 5SO-5S5, it Is said, in speak
ing Of case analogous in principles:
THE Public Building Act is gen
eral law applying to all boards, Com
missioners and officers, without spe-
cial designation charged with the cree
ton of any State asylum or other I'M
provement. Section 1924 Is a part of
special Act applicable to one partlc-
ular board, and it is well settled that
statutes bearing upon the same sub
ject matter must, if possible, be con-
strued together, and that general
provision will be controlled by one that
is special. 1t is not pretended that
there is any express repeal, and it is
an established rule of construction that
the law does not favor repeal by i'm
plication, but that. where there are
two provisions relating to the same
subject matter, they must, If possible,
be construed so as to maintain the
integrity of both. And where two
statutes treat Of the same subject, one
being special and the other general,
unless they are irreconeilably incon-
sistent. the latter, although latest in
date, will not be held to have repealed
the former but the special Act will
prevail in it's application to the subject
matter, so far as coming within its
particular provisions
And still further, at p. 5S7, the court
says:
Furthermore, we have a legislative
construction that the provisions of Sec.
2524 were not repealed or intended to
be by the general Act. In 1887, and
again in 1889, the Legislature amend
ed that section. Sutherland on Statute
Const. 157-15S: Endlich on Statute
Const. 223: Home for Inebriate VS..
Refs, 50 Cal. ZAP.
Not only do the principles an
nounced in these decisions appear to
be peculiarly applicable to the fact as
presented by your communication, but
the Legislature did, in 1899. amend
Sec. 1913 of the Municipal Corporation
Act, .so-called, thus evincing a legisla-
tive construction that said Act was not
repealed. This construction is further
borne out by the case of Chico High
School Board vs. Supervisors, 11S Cal,
.. lis.
AS heretofore stated, Sec. 1913 of the
Municipal Corporation Act was amend
ed in 1899 (Stats. 1899, p. 99), the only
change being the addition of the words
primary. kindergarten, grammar and
evening" after the word public" in
said section. The Constitution of this
State, Art. TX, Sec. 6. provides that
the public school system shall include
primary and grammar schools, and
such high schools, evening schools,
normal schools and technical schools
lature or by municipal or district au-
thority.
In Frandzen VS.. County of San Diego
COL Cal, page 32D it is said that
where there are in an Act specific pro-
visions relating to particular subject,
they must govern in respect to that
subject as against a general provision
in other parts of the statute, although
the latter standing alone would be
broad enough to include the subject to
which the more particular provision re-
lated. Englich on Interpretation of
Stats, Sec. 1881
If the addition to Sec. 1913 Of the
Municipal Corporation Act OF the
words primary, kindergarten, gram
mar and evening" after the word pub
lie" is to be given any significance, it
would appear to be that the Legis-
lature intended thereby to specifically
enumerate the character of the schools
which the Board of Education of these
municipalities should have power to
establish, and thus negative the idea
that the board had power to establish
any other schools than those men,
toned. If this were not the effect of
the amendment, and if the amend
ment does not change the law in any
particular, it is difficult to see any
reason for the amendment. This con-
struction is in perfect harmony with
the general scheme adopted for the
uniform government and establish
ment Of high schools throughout the
State.
On the other hand, in accordance
with we'll recognized rules of statutory
construction, every word in statute
should, if possible. be given some
meaning and effect, and the mere
enumeration of those subjects which
are included in the generic word pre-
ceding the enumeration would not limit
the effect of the generic word espe-
cially when the enumeration does not
exhaust all of the subjects contained
in the generic word (Which is the case
before us, as will be seen by Art. TX,
Sec. 6 of the Constitution, which. de-
fines what the term public schools
shall include). If this be true, then
the power of the Board of Education
to establish high schools would not be
disturbed, but would exist as before
the amendment of 1899.
All of these rules and considerations,
however, are merely aids to construc-
ton, the main and only purpose of
which is to ascertain the legislative in
tent AS you will readily see, the
proper construction of this statute is
not entirely free from doubt, but am
inclined to the opinion that the Leg
islature intended, by the amendment
to Sec 1913 of the Municipal Corpora
ton Act, to take from the Board of
Educate of the municipalities men
toned the power to establish high
schools. and that they intended that
all the high schools of the State should
be governed by the general law
The matter however, is of such
grave Importance that I should advise
that it be submitted to a court for