Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-09-22

rHE MOANING APPEAL CARSON
statute upon certain subject matter,
and the legislative intention appears
from he latter statute to be to frame
q new scheme In relation to Gnch sub.
ject matter and make q rey1sion 0f
the whole subtect, there IT, f. efect, /
q legislative declaration that what
ever is embraced In the new statuta
shall prevail and that whatever is ex-
Guided is discarded. The revision of
the whole subject matter by the new
statute evinces an intention to sub
stitute the provisions Of the new law
for the old law upon the subject. IT
follows that the claim that the Act
of 1877 Is still in force is untenable,
as it is repealed by the Act Of 1887"
In the case of Mack VS. Jastro,
supra, the question involved was
whether the County Government Act
Of 1897, operated as a repeal of the
County Government Act Of 1893. The
court in that case say: I'VE think
however, that q reading of the two
sections at once discloses that the
legislature in the County Government
Act OF 1897 designed and devised q
new and complete scheme for the is
suance OF county bonds, and while 1t
is true that repeats by implication
are not favored, whenever it becomes
apparT ent that later statute Is reviS-
ory of the entire matter of an earlier
statute, and is designed as substi-
tute for it, the latter statute will pre-
vail, and the earliest statute will be
held to have been superseded, even
though there be found no inconsistent
ces or repugnancies between the two.
Frequently these cases arise where
the later statute covering the whole
subject matter omits or fails II men
ton certain terms or requirements
found in an earlier, and it is insisted
as here, that those particular provis.
ions of the earlier statute should be
held to be still in force. But, as IS
said by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Murdoch VS. Never,
etc = 90 Wall, $50. where like ques-
ton was presented to that tribunal:
1t will be perceived by this statement
that there is no repeal by positive
new enactments inconsistent with
f the old law. 1t is the words that
, are wholly omitted in the new statute
which constitute the important fea-
ture in the questions thus propounded
for discussion - = A careful
comparison OF these TIVE sections car
leave no doubt that it was the inten.
ton OF Congress by the latter statute
to revise the entire matter to which
! they both had reference, to make
such changes in the law as it stood as
!. they thought best, and to substitute
,.-eir will in that regard entirely fol-
: the old law upon the subject VIC
, are of the opinion that it was their in
, tention to make new law so far as
the present law differed from the for
mer. and that the new law embracing
!. all that was intended to be preserved
of the old, omitted what was not 5:
intended, because complete in itself
! and repealed all other law on tbs
5 subject embraced within it. The au
: thorities on this subject are clear
: and uniform After citing a mum
! Der of additional authorities the cour
g further say: "The facts in the cas-
J. above quoted and in the one at ba
| are strictly analogous, and the pl:n
i ciple declared is pertinent and dec;s
L i've. It would unduly and unneces
t sarily prOlOng this consideration [,
+ set forth the two statutes for. puT
y pose of comparison and contrast, blu
9 as has been said, mere reading q
j, the two will at once disclose that tn
4 Legislature. by the latter, formulate,
r clan for the issuance Of bonds, fu
+ and complete in itself. and. therefore
e plan which superseded it's earle
=. declaration on the matter. It Is no
0 SO much repeal by Implication as |
l. is that. the legislature having mad
e new and complete expression of it
e will upon the subject, this last e,
Il preston must prevail, and whateve
is excluded therefrpm must be ig
/ nored."
e. Counsel for appellant while ad
# hitting the correctness of the rul
J. relied on, argues that it is not app
it cable to statutes like that of 1905
f. question, for the reason that the legi
3. lature having, in the repeating claus
lie OF the Act. expressed its intention a
IS to the extent the Act should opera!
e. as a repeal of former statutes or pr
visions of law, such repeating claus
as is controlling Section eighteen
n the. Act of 1905 contains this repea
t, ing provision: All acts and parts
I'll Acts in conflict with this Act ar
/, hereby repealed"
lis From this position counsel argue
ed that the provisions of the Act {
e. 1899. relative to the granting Of ter
is porary certificates by the Secreta.
m of the Board of Medic~s Examiner
s, are not in conflict with 10 provision
". of the Act of 1905, and, hence, ar
3; still in force and impose the duty u
i, on respondent to grant the temporal
G. certificate demanded of him. Coul
81 sci has cited one or two authoriti,
which seem to support his contentio
81 particularly the case of Borden 4
II Wells, IA Mont 462, In the case Ia
ct mentioned the court gave liter
N construction to repeating clau,
rs similar to that contained in the Al
,e OF 1905, in question, and virtually he