Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-01
THE INTENT OF THE LAW.

toriQl In the News OF FRIDAY evening"
Those able attorneys admit that the law
of 1856, under which the polltax ordl-
mace was passed, because section 2iSO OF
the Revised Statutes OF 1898 repeated
the laws previously enacted. But 1t ls
claimed that all the other questions
raised in the "News" article were dis
cussed before the court This raises
question that needs some further inves-
tIgation Of the subject. Here Is the
language OF the repeating section cited
by the attorneys:
"All acts and resolutions passed by
The Legislative Assembly OF the Terri
tory OF Utah. and all acts ana resolu-
tons passed by the Legislature OF the
state OF Utah, prior 20 the second resu-
lar session OF the Legislature are mere
by repealed, subject TO the limitations
and exceptions herein expressed &c
The same chapter that contains this
repeating clause provides that the Re-
vised Statutes shall take effect on the
first day OF aJnuary 1898. on the same
day that the repeal OF former laws be-
came Of force the Revised Statutes
went into effect. AS a matter OF fact
then, all the old laws that were con-
tnued and only those that had been
expunged therefrom, or had been so
amended that the amendments only
were carried into the revision
became void or invalid The statute OF
1886. recurring polltax Of every man
over twenty-one and under fifty years,
and giving authority to Incorporated
cities and towns to collect and expend
said poltax under such regulations as
may be by ordinance prescribed, was
continued in force In the Revised stat
utes. There was no lapse or hiatus or
period during which the polltax law
from 1856 onward wa imperative.
There was at the 6,me time an Or
dlnance of this city which prescribed
the manner OF collecting and expend-
ing this polltax, provided by the legis-
lature. But It is contended that un-
der section 81 OF the Revised Statutes
the special charters OF the respective
cities were repealed aud Title 10 con-
fers on cities the power they may exer-
else, and the authority to levy polltax
which was In previous charters Is not
to be found In that title, In answer TO
that we have already shown that this
city did not proceed under any char
ter, special or general, In collecting and
dlsbuHing the polltax, but under the
law Of 1886 which was continued or re-
peated in the Revised Statutes Of 1898.
Against the contention that the law
OF 1856 was repealed and that therefore
the city ordinance passed under Il be-
came void, we bring the language Of
the repeating clause, which says 1t is
subject to the limitations and excep-
tons therein expressed Well, section
3li, which simply repeats special char
tiers of cities and towns, has this ex-
press limitation or provision;
1.-THE ordinances and resolutions now
IN force In any city or town shall con-
tinue In full force and effect until re-
pealed or amended Notwithstanding
the change herein provided for, so far
as such ordinances and resolutions are
not in conflict with the provisions Of
this title"
Now wherein does the ordinance
passed under the act Of the legislature
OF 1886 "confict with Title 10? II Is
true that there is no polltax clause in
that title. 1t was not needed there, in
the light OF section i7iS Of the same
Revised Statutes TO conflict, means 90
collide, contend. resist. combat, antag-
onlze. There Is nothing IN the poltay
ordinance passed under authority Of
statutory law that conflicts with any
thing in Title TO- And there is nothing
in section 1913 which conflicts with IT,
either. The last clause Of section 81
seems to be ample TO cover the ground
of the city ordinance under considera-
ton.
In the construction OF these provisions
courts viii or should be guided by Sec
ton 2ls9 OF the same statutes which
says:
The Revised Statutes establish the
law Of this sttc respecting the sub
jccts 10 which they relate and their
provisions and all proceedings under
them are 10 be literally construed with
view 10 effect the objects OF hi
statutes and TO promote justice"
II was evidently The intention Of the
Legislature TO continue the powers
granted 10 cities and towns 20 collec,
and expend the polltax provided. and
also to exempt from repeal, ordinances
that did not conflict with other pro.
visions. II has been iuiicialy decided
that "A statute should be SO expouudcd
as 10 give effect to what was manifest.
IS the intention OF the legislature
tEcllpse Mfg 90. vs. Nichols ] n. 252) !
Another provision OF the Revised !
Statutes, section 1882 is:
The repeal Of a statute does not
revive statute previously repealed !
nor affect any right which has accrued |
any duty imposed any nolN incurr . |
nor any action OF proceeding commenc.
ed under or BY virtue OF the statute
repealed"
Only a part Of that section applies IN
the present argument but that part O.
pertinent in view Of the other citations
We have made, For. the city Council |
had q risht which had accrued and "a
duts imposed by Law which ought nol