The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-03-19

Board of Revenue in each county. or courts ar boards of like jurisdiction: Jus | tices of the Peace and Constables in each precinct of the county. Section 26 fixes | the time for electing State executive of- | ficers. Section 25 provides: "One Coro- | ner. County Commissioners or Board of | Revenue of whatever number composed or court or board of like jurisdiction, one | Tax Assessor, one Tax Collector, one | County Treasurer, one County supcrln- | teudert of Education. two Justices of
 tho Peace and one Constable for each | election precinct shall be elected on the | first Tuesday after the first Monday in | November 1904, and every fourth year | thereafter"
 | The question, therefore, is whether the | rrovisions in Sections 24, 25 and 27, above | set forth operate & repeal of the special act first apove mentioned providing for | the appointment of the Board of Reye- | rue for Montgomery County The gen. | eral repeating clause contained in Section | i07 of the election law, above referred | to, 'fs merely legislative declaration of the necessary effect of the act. if the l clause had not been inserted" Ogbourne V. Ogbourne. 60 Ala, SIS. | Tn Rodgers " United States. 1855 U. 8.
 &, 8, Mir. Justice Brewer speaking for the court, said: Tt is a canon of stat utory construction that later statute, general in it's terms and not expressly | repeating a prior special statute. will or dinarily not affect the special provisions | of such earlier statute. In other words, l where there are two statutes, the earlier | special and the later general-the terms of the general broad nough to include
 the matter provided for in the special
 the fact that the one Is special and the
 other Is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as
 remaining an exception to the general, and the general will not be understood
 as repeating the special. unless a repeal is expressly named, or unless the pro- visions of the general are manifestly in- consistent with those of the special. Tn Black on the Interpretation of Laws, l16 the proposition is thus stated: As a corollary from the doctrine that
 implied repeals are not favored, 1t has
 come to be an established rule in the
 construction of statutes that a subse-
 auent act, treating a subject in general
 terms and not expressly contradicting
 the provisions of a prior special statute.
 is not to be considered as intended to
 affect the more particular and specific
 provisions of the earlier act, unless 1t
 is absolutely necessary so to construe 1t
 in order to give its words any meaning
 at all.'
 "so. in sedgwick on the Construction
 Of Statutory and Constitutional Law, the
 author observes, on page sS. with respect
 to this rule; ..
 "The reason and philosophy of the rule
 is. that when the mind of the legislator
 has been turned to the details of a sub
 ject, and he has acted upon it, sub
 sequent statute in general terms or
 AAA tra apVta
 and not expressly contradicting the orig
 inal act, shall not be considered as in-
 tended to affect the more particular or
 positive previous provisions, unless 1t is
 absolutely necessary to give the latter
 act such a construction, in order that
 its words shall have any meaning at all"
 And Crane V. Reeder, g Michigan,
 322, 334 MT. Justice Christiancy, speak,
 ing for the Supreme Court of that State.
 said:
 " where there are two acts or provis-
 Ions. one of which Is special and partic-
 ular. and certainly includes the matter
 in question, and the other general,
 which, if standing alone, would include
 the same matter and thus conflict with
 the special act or provision. the special
 act must be taken as intended to constf-
 tute an exception to the general act or
 provision, especially when such general
 and special acts or provisions are contem-
 poraneous, as the Legislature is not to
 be- presumed to have intended q con-
 fiict.' 7" s'+
 The American and English Eneyclo- pedia of Law, second edition. volume 26, pages 739, Al. treating of the subject of repeal of particular act by later gen. eral law takes it's text apparently from the above quoted decision of the United States Supreme Court and in support thereof cites many Federal and State de- clsions including decisions of our own Supreme Court Indeed. since the decis- ion in Mobile and Ohio Railroad Co., V. State. 20 Ala. 573, 1t has been uniformly held that a special act is not repealed by a later general law unless the inten- tion to repeal Is manifest upon the face of the later act. Tn City Council V. Ma tional B. and L.. Association, 10s Ala, s3e the subject is eTaborately discussed and the doctrine fully applied. the court. through Mir. Justice Mcclellan, quoting from it's former decisions to the effect that when the intention of the Legisla- ture is not apparent to the purpose of repeal. particular provisions in q former act are not repealed by the general words of later act. "the maxim Of the law being. generalia specialibus non dero- gant." (things general. do not derogate from things speciaD; that when the law 1escends to particulars the special pro visions must be understood as exceptions 10 any general rules laid down to the that the question of implied -epeal was one of intention, and when | TWO acts are passed at the same session 1 ,f the Legislature on the same subject | { shows an intent that one is not re- | 1ealed by the other, but that they are to | ,e construed together. The court quoted | lpprovingly from Powers V. Shepard, 4S | Y. Y. 450: Tt Is hardly to re presumed | hat the Legislature would repeal an act passed but fourteen days before and If hey had intended to do so they proba- Ily would have said 90 in some apprOpri- Ite language and would not have left 1t o mere inference" The question before he court in the 10Sth Alabama case was an act exempting building and lon was repealed or affected by a later let of the same session authorizing the to tax all businesses, trades. or professions carried on in he city. The court held that the doc rines above set forth were of manifest application to the statutes Involved in hat case. and that the exemption in the 'arller act was not repealed by the rem raj words of the later act
 The act of February B. 1913, provides or dividing the County into districts and he appointment of a member from each istrict, thereby securing representa- ton 0 every section of the county; and, dif- ering from the former statute provides or clerk outside of the membership Of he board. besides other details. To hold hat these special and particular provis- ons to which the attention of the law ,n-N-.