The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-08-04

i 1873 10 fepettt OtIcI SldthlSS "tiiiOu vi
| the same day with the supposed repeal
| ing act.
| 1t is contended by the railroad com
panies that because the machinery act OF
| 1899, section %, page a, gives to the
| Railroad Commissioners the power to
list unlisted railroad property, and re-
peals ''all acts and parts of acts incoa-
sistent with this act" therefore the act
expressly authorizing the Railroad
Commission or the Corporation Commits
sion or any body succeeding to their
powers to assess unlisted property, which
was ratified ON the same day. is repeal
ed. But the two acts are of equal force
ard dignity. They are upon the same
subject and must he considered as one
act. Neither repeals the other. The
constructions put upon them by the rail
rod companies would render both acts
nugatory, as there is no Railroad Com
mission in existence. There is, therefore
nothing in this contention.
But if the Railroad Commission is in
existence. It is under changed name
and the repeating clause was or could
not have Hecn intended to abolish the
CORPORATION Commission, or to take from
it one Of its most important duties.
In State VS.. Jordan, supra, Furches
j., in speaking for the court says:
"All acts of the same session Of the
Legislature upon the same subject-mat-
ter are considered as one act, and must
be construed together under the doe
trine of sin pari material State vs..
Bell, - ~ c., sos; Black Interp. Laws,
see Sc: End. Interp St sec. 40; Cain VS.
State. 20 Tex, 800 They should be
considered in pari materia whether pass
ed at the same session or not. Simon
ton VS.. I1anier, II n c., 49S: Rhodes VS..
Lewis, so n. c., 1876. Whefa former
act has been repealed on has expired by
its limitation. when it is JIM pari materia.
it must he considered i'm connection with
the last act and. if necessary, rs a part
of it. Potter. Dwar. st. p. 100. 1T
certainly appears strange" says WI.
liams, j., in Il late case. that, when am
act Of parliament is per SO abolished it
shall virtually have effect through an
other act. But im that case the former
act was substantially re-enacted. Reg
VS.. Meronetshire, 6 Adol and e.. 343
it does. indeed. seem to be the prevailing
doctrine, (and it is more rational in itself
than consistent with coeval maximsl.
that where 0lpe statute refers to another.
which is repealed. the words Of the for.
NOR act must stiIl he considered rs II
introduced into the latter statute. Pot
ter. Dwar. st. p. 1872"
In Rex. VS.. Loxdale, / Burrows, AT,
it is held, Lord Mansfield delivering the
Judgment OF the court: That where
there are different statutes in pari ma
terra though made at different times, or
even where they have expired, and not
referring to each ether, they shall be
taken and considered together as ONE sys-
TEN, and as explanatory OF each other"
The same doctrine is held in New York.
Smith VS.. People, AZ n. Y. $50 which is
very much in point"
Several statutes that are in pari ma
terra are to be construed as one statute
in explaining their meaning and import
Patterson VS.. VIM, II Wheat. $50;
The Harriet, / Story, II. 251 u. S. vs..
Hearyes, Crabbe's II. 307; Dubois VS..
Mclean, 4 Mclean r. 4S9. !: BlatchGs
G. X. II. 80, and contemporaneous an
tecedent and subsequent statutes on The
same subject matter may be examined
and considered in constituting the said
act. Rogers VS.. Bradshaw, 20 John.
al, McCartee VS.. Orphan Asylum, 9
G42, Kent. Com. 46S; Waterford
Western Turnpike Company, vs. People,
8 Barb, 1911"
Dwarrls on Statutes, page 49, note.
1T is rule of construction universally
recognized that such Interpretation must
be given to a law as will contain rather
than destroy 1t. ut res magis valeat
guam pereat.' Dwarris on Statutes, BOB.
If the contention Of tn erailroad company
shall prevail there is no body existent
by whom the most important duties of
assessing railroad properties can be per
formed
Statutes that are apparently in con
fict should be. construed that both may
stand if possible. They are to be recon
ciled as far as they may be on any fair
hypothesis and validity given to each
of them If it can be- Johnson vs..
Byrd, Hampstead Rep 434, Beals VS..
Hale, How. (U. 81 81.
"In order to arrive at the true legisa-
tive intent in constituting doubtful
statute, that construction SHOULD be
adopted which is best conformable to
reason and justice, the Legislature will
not be presumed to have intended that
which is against reason"
Commonwealth VS.. Iimball, p Pic.
$40.
% A. & Il. Enc. Law, page 35S.
There is strong presumption against
absurdity in statutory provision; it be-
ing unreasonable to suppose that the
Legislature intended their own stulih-
cation. So, when the language of an
act is susceptible Of two senses, that
sense will he adopted which will not
lead to absurd consequences.
% A. d II. Enc. Law, page 362.
IF. by the words of n statute, the
intention of the Legislature be improba-
BILE, the court must give it construction"
The Hunter, l Peters, c. G. Il. 10.
'That construction is favored which
gives effect to every clause and every
part of the statute, thus producing a
consistent and harmonious whole. A
construction which would leave without
effect any part of the language used,
should be rejected if an Interpretation
can be found which will give it effect"
23 A. & Il. Enc. Law, page 800.
And it is always to be presumed that
the Legislature has intended the most
reasonable and beneficial construction
Of their acts, if the words of the act
are not precise and clear, Pearce VS.. At