The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-12-13
OLD BOARD
 IS SUSTAINED Judge Sayre Decides lm-
 pOrtant Matter. TIT WILL BE APPEALED Contest as to Montgomery R9ari of Revenue. Court Holds That Appointment or its Members Was Not Effected by
 Enactment of General
 Election Law.

Senior Judge A. D. Sayre of the City Court of Montgomery yesterday sus- tained the demurrers of M. E. Hough- ton and associate members of the County Board of Revenue 10 the petl- ton of A. P. Tyson and associates TOT the remocal of the members or the Board from office.
 The decision of Judge Sayre means that in his opinion there IS no detect in the law by which MT, Houghton ana other members of the Board Of Reve- nue are holding office although MT. Tyson and his assocaites will appear from Judge Sayre's decision to the Supreme Court
 It will be remembered that some time last spring certain Montgomery lawyers gave 1t as their opinion that as the new general election law pro- vided for the election of County Boards of Revenue by the people the special act of the Legislature passed a great many years ago providing for appoint ment of members of the Montgomery County Board was invalidated.
 Those Who are COntesting.
 Acting on these opinions A. P. Tyson, C. A. Allen, David Fleming. Amos Jones and W. D. Zuber secured the nominations for the places on the BOap0 ana were elttltu "ltU NIcW to testing the matter in the courts. The members of the Board of Revenue did not contest the election of Mir. Tyson and his associates.
 Saturday the petition sof Mir. Tyson and his associates to, oust Mir. Tough ton and other members of the Board and the demurrers to the petition were argued at length before Judge Sayre who announced that he would take the matter under consideration.
 When the civil division of the court was convened at 10 o'clock yesterday morning Judge Sayre announced rom the bench that he had made an crder sustaining the demurrers of Mir Houghton and his associates. He did not write an opinion
 Judge Sayre's View. , In chambers yesterday afternoon Judge Sayre discussed the case infor- mally with a representative of The Advertiser. This is substantially what he said:
 The rule in the State is for Courts of County Commissioners but in a num- Der of counties there are Boards oi Revenue. In Montgomery County the Beard of Revenue is appointed by the Governor. In most, If not all the other counties. where they have Boards oi | heVenue, they are elected Dy the peO pie The Board of Revenue of Mont gomery County vas established by 6 special act In 1875. On October s, 1903 a general election law was passed the purpose of which was to regulate the manner of holding elections and tc change the time of holding elections from August to November. In this general act mention Is made of County Commissioners and Boards of Revenue generally. among all other officers the time of whose election was to be changed.
 The contention of MT. Tyson and his associates was that this general election law had the effect of changing the Montgomery County Board of Rev enue from an appointive board to an elective board. They do not pretend that this change was effected by any direct expression of the Legislature to that end. Their contention Is that this change was effected by implication That is to say. they contend that the general election law by implication re- peals so much of the special law for Montgomery County as makes the board appontive
 Construction of the Law.
 My decision is the result of the ap- plication of some well settled rules of statutory construction. A special law is never repealed by a general law un- less the two are in irreconcilable con fiict. If a field of operation can be found for both, then there is no repeal by implication.
 MT. Tyson and his associates con- tend that the phrase Boards of Reve- nue in the general election law ap- plies necessarily to all Boards of Rev enue, but the court holds that since there were Boards of Revenue in the State which were elective by the peo- pie at the time of the passage of the general election law and 1t was neces- sary to change the time of the election along with all the rest, the reference was made to Boards of Revenue for that purpose and none other.
 There seemed 10. be some doubt whether a provision changing an office from appointive to elective has any constitutional or al least proper place in a general election law any moro than would have a provision changing an office from elective to appointive or atolishing or creating an office. This point was taken and considered to be of much weight but was not necessarily involved in the decisior.
 The result was 8 ruling that the words Boards of Revenue in the gen eral election law have an operation without swing them the effect sof re- pcaling rne special statute for Mont g"r'ery County. and therefore that no repeal by implication is to be found In the general law"
 If the Supreme Court sustains the decision of Judge Sayre it will be of far reaching importance to other off, cials of the State,