The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-10-17

tentlOnS, put am or the opinion that the weight of authority upholds the constitu- tionality of laws framed as the one in question.
 Confirmed By Alabama Court.
 I am especially confirmed In the opinion that this is correct from the support given to this view by the decisions of our own supreme court hereinabove cited. A general law as the term is used in our constitution Is law which operates throughout the state alike upon all tho people or all of a class. Holt vs. M. & | A. of Birmingham, III Ala 373.
 From the foregoing I am of the opinion | that said act Is not unconstitutional for | 1t Is so framed as to operate upon all of ] a class
 l This brings us to the relator's second
 insistence-that said act does not repeal
 former statutes creating the former l police commission, under which Hon.
 Hal J. Copeland and others are acting.
 It is a well recognized rule that gen eral statute does not repeal a special | local or private act. but this Is not with out exception. A statute may have the
 effect of repeating a former statute,
 although it is silent upon the subject | of repeal. When the later statute covers
 the whole subject matter of the former, and 1t clearly appears to have been the purpose of the legislature to give expres-
 sion in tito the whole law on the sub
 ject, then the former statute is held repealed by implication. Lewis Suther- l land on statutory construction. 465-474
 And this construction obtains even if | the former Is private act M. & O. Rail-
 road Co. vs. the State, 29 Ala, 573 Relators counsel rely in argument | with confidence, upon the Houghton case
 142 Ala, 90, as holding, in effect, that such a law as the one in question cannot | have the effect of repeating a private l act. but think this case Is to be differen- l tiated from the other Alabama decisions
 holding a contrary view, in that the act discussed in the Houghton case did not contain provisions repugnant to the prl- vate act aud manifestly intended as a | substitute for it.
 l In my opinion the act of March :. 1907 and the former acts relating to the police commission of Birmingham both co-exist
 and each have a field of operation. | The case of Edson vs. the State, 1Si | Ala, 52, is strikingly analogous to the
 one at bar. There. the latter act con i sidcred had no repeating clause, but it
 dealt with the subject matter of former
 statute and was in contact with 1t. The
 supreme court, speaking of the two
 statutes, says: '.Manfestly the purpose ! of the latter was to take from the board l of revenue. constituting the board oi | jury commissioners, the powers and au- 1 thority conferred upon them by the | former. and to confer that power and ! authority upon a board composed of the | judge and associate judge of the city i court, the probate judge, the sheriff and | the clerk of the circuit court of the coun- 1 ty It is entirely clear from the policy 1 of the two acts. gathered from the pur- ! poses and objects sought to be attained I lature to have two legal jury boxes for | the county at one and the same time.
 "Furthermore. the last act 1 is an affirmative statute revising the en- | tire subject matter of the former, and | was evidently intended as substitute | for it. This being true 1t had the effect
 of repeating the former, although con | taining no expres words to that effect. | The same proposition is set forth in au- i thorities in 3 Brlckell page 75o, para 1 graph 49 and Mayfeld. page S5S para | graph 132.
 The legislature Is presumed to have in
 tended what Is plainly expressed, and l under the provisions of said act of .->Srch
 [, 1907. I can see no room for any other
 construction than that the said act was | intended as substitute for former sta
 tutes relating to police commissions fol
 the city of Birmingham. Bartlett vs
 Morris, Porter, 26S.
 In Force From Approval.
 | It is urged that tne act of March
 1907. and the former statutes op. tn same subject can all have a field of oper