Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-10-26
PROvlSloN'sNoT REPEALED
ATTORNEY DUVALL,S OPINION RE-
sPECTING DISCOUNTS ON TAXES.

trict this afternoon rendered an opinion TO
the District Comm issioners in which he
holds that there IS no provision In the act
Of Congress Of February u, 1900, repug-
nant to the 7previsfon relative to the dis
count or abatement upon the payment OF
water main taxes, nand that the provision
has not beeni repealed, but is still in full
force and effect. 2sThe opinion was rem
dered upon the communication of Messrs.
Cole Donaldson, attorneys for Joseph
Speidel owner of certain lots in Center
lexington. - Is --'-tf 95]t
'It appearssH says the attorney, that
these lots are assessed for a water main
tax and that the owner was notified OF the
assessment on August %. 1901 Within
thirty days after the receipt of the notice
ment the amount thereof, less u per cent.
The collector. of taxes refused to accept the
annoiint rendered, claiming that the provis-
i had Seea asee Ps ae of congress
regulating water main assessments In the
District of Columbia, approved February
q, 1901. *! -
ment upon the payment of water main
taxes appears In the first ordinance upon
the subject by the late corporation of
Washington, December 20, 1864 1t was re-
produced in the act of the late legislative
assembly, approved June B. 1873. and
again In the act of Congress, to authorize
the reassessment of Waterman taxes, APP
proved June 2, 1900. The provision thus
appears to have been a settled feature in
the system
Law Regulating Assessments.
"On February q, 1900, Congress passed
an act regulating assessments for water
mains in the District of Columbia, which
provided, among other things. that the as
he IN tn
stalIments, instead Of four, and reducing
the amount Of interest on the deferred
payments but making no reference what
ever to the matter Of the discount or
abatement for payment of the whole
amount at one time, as allowed by the eX-
listing law. The act in it's second section
provides that all laws or parts of laws
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed
The question is therefore whether the pro-
vision in reference to discount or abate-
mens is repealed by this aforementioned
act.
s'It is not expressly repealed, and If re-
pealed at all it Is by implication. Repeal
by implication is not favored by the courts,
and the rule Of statutory construction is
that there must be an unmistakabIe intent
to make the new act substitute for the
old and to contain all the law on the sub
ject. There must be an irreconciIable re-
pugnancy, clear and convincing and follow
ing necessarily from the language used in
the later act. Hence every effort must be
used to make all statutes stand, and if by
any reasonable construction they can be
reconciied the later act will not operate as
a repeal of the earlier.
ut seems to me that If Congress intended
to change this well-settled feature of the
water main assessment system it would
have definitely said so. but in it's act no al
fusion whatever is made to the subject
which is distinct from the other provisions
relating to payment mentioned in the act"
Some Provisions Repealed
The attorney refers to an opinion deliy-
cred by Justice Field in the Supreme Court
of the United States. which bears out this
construction Of the law of repeal, and con-
tinues:
1.-THE act of Congress approved February
g. 1901, which is claimed to repeal existing
law, repeats some Of Its provisions. omits
others and adds newt provisions, but 1t does
not plainly appear to my mind that It was
intended as substitute for all Of the pro-
visions of the existing law
4 am Of the-opinlon that there is In it no
provision necessarily repugnant to the pro-
vision relating to- The discount or abate-
ment. and that said provision has not been
repealed, but is still In force and effect,
and that in the case under consideration
the amount rendered should have been re-
ceived in full payment of the water main
assessment" III 1's'
opinion IN Another Case.
Mr.. Duvall also forwarded to the Com
missioners an Apinion based upon the COM
munication ofsJoseph r. Fague, attorney
for the estateaef John B. Reuth in refer
ence to the payment of taxes for the years
1888 and 1889 oFH certain lands without pen
alties. interest and costs
1t is stated that this property was adver-
tised In the delinquent tax sale for 1888 and
again for 1889; in each advertisement 1t was
insuficiently and improperly described. and
the claim Is now made that because Of this
misdescription all penalties, interest and
costs should be reunited upon payment Of
the principal of the tax for each Of the said
years.
sit does not follow" says Attorney Du-
vail, from the concession that the tax sale
for each Of said years Is invalid, that
thereby all penalties, which, under the law
had become part of the tax at the time of
the sale. are extinguished; these penalties
on each year up to the time Of advertise
ment are stin collectible, because they are
part and parcel Of the delinquent tax.
am of the opinion that, under the circum-
stances of the case the Commissioners
would be authorized to accept in payment
the amount of the principal tax with pen
alty mn To the time of the respecffve invalid