The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-03
OLD BOARD
 SUSTAINED Montgomery County Reye-
 nue Officers. LOCAL ACT IS VALID Supreme Court Decides With HOughtOn and Others, Justice DowdelI Amrms Oplnion of Judge sayre that Fleming ana
 His Associates Have No
 Claim

The Supreme Court Alabama yes.
 tsrday sileneed the contentious of the gentlemen who were elected to the Montgomery County Board of Revenue
 on November s, 1904, deciding that the Eve officers involved belong to the old
 members whe were appointed by the Governor
 The members of the Board sustained
 in office by the Supreme Court are
 M. B. Houghton. Warren D. Brown, H.
 H. Barnes, Charles L. Mathews and pr.
 Thomas Duncan, They were appointed
 on April {, 1903, by Governor Jelks, for four years.
 The men who were elected last No-
 vember and were yesterday defeated in the contest for the offices are David Fleming, A. P. Tyson. w. D. Zuber, c, A. Allen and Amos Jones.
 Appealed from Judge Snyrcs It will be recalled that few months ago the Board members-elect sought to
 oust the appointees by the use of quo
 warranto proceedings in the Montgom- cry City Court, The proceedings were of no avail, Judge A. D. sayre denying
 the write. and AA appeal was prosecuted from the decision.
 The contention of the members-eiect were briefly that the general election law of the last Legislature repealed the local act. making the offices appointive The local law, which was approved February 2s, 1903, divided Montgomery
 County into i've districts and provided that a member of the Board of Revenue should be appointive from each district The general law followed on October D, 1903, making ali County Commission
 CTS and Board of Revenue members elective
 Justice DowdeIl, who wrote the opinion in the case, upheld at length what was the basis of Judge Sayre's decision.
 The only way that 1t could be contend ed the local act was repealed by the general act was by implication. The Supreme Court decision con- cIuded that there was no repeal of the local act by implication or otherwise. Several things and existing decisions are in favor of the appointed oncefs' One of them is the fact that the gen- eral law has room for operation out side of Montgomery County. Then, too, the general act does not contain anything which specifically re- peaIs the local law for this county. Both acts were passed at the same ses-
 sion and there are local reasons, 1t is held, why the special law is a wise one. Nothing could be seen by Jus 1 tioe D0wdell to indicate that the gem erai law intendea 70 repeal the tVe~A act.
 Am Important Point. An important enunciation of law by
 Justice Dowdell in this case will apply
 to future contests in which the question
 of the repeal of local law by a subse.
 quent general act is at Issue.
 {, "When both acts have the same
 scope" says Justice Dowdeli, 'ft may be difficult to give both field of opera
 ton, but where, as here, although relat- ing to the same subject-matter, one Is local in it's operation and the other gen. eral, each having a distinct field of op- eration, which might seem conflict between the two disappears In finding spheres for the operation of both. In such a case the latter general act does moi repeal the former local act unless a repeal Is necessary to give the words of the general act any meaning at all.
 The case of the contest between old ana new Revenue and Road Commis- sioners of Mobile County is pending be. fore the Supreme Court and will in all nrobability be decided at the present term.