The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-09-30

pointmsnt of County supsrintsndsnts of Eaucation.'
 "Mr. wilson treats the subject in . general way end relying upon informa- tion furnished by the Department or Education ,sssunes that local acts pro- vide for tbe Appointment of County Superintendents in some of the eoun- tiea.' Tn this opinion he uses the foi- lowing language;
 You wish to know whether this statute (the General Election Law or is0sl repeals the several local laws providing for the appointment or County Superintendents in some of the counties.' After showing clearly that there was no provision in the General Election Law above cited. which in express terms repeais local laws. and adopting the well established rule of construction that repeais by implication are not favored by our courts. in which principle I concur. the opinion con- cludes as follows;
 !" I do not think the several local laws providing for the appointment of County Superintendents are repealed
 Tt will be observed that Mir. wil- son did not express any opinion with reference to this particular office for Talladega County. and the views ex- pressed by him do not determine the status of the office of the County Su- perintendent of Taliadega County. Mis- apprehension has arisen by reason of the misapplication heretofore made in the Department of Education of the general principles announced by Mir. Wilson.
 "There are no local acts providing for the appointment of County Super intendents of Education in any of the counties since the Code of 1888. The Act of February 13th. 1889, is the only Act on this subject. which makes all of the County Superintendents elective except those mentioned under the pro- viso of said Act.
 T do not think we need consider at great length the General Election Act of 1903. It is not applicable, ac- cording R my construction. except in so far aS 1t creates a term of four years for County Superintendents of Education elected in November, 1904; and with regard to this extended term of four years, 1t will be observed that this construction of the General Elec- ton Law is in perfect harmony with the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Powell vs. the State. ex of Covington vs. Thompson. 142 Ala. ps. where the Supreme Court held, in effect. that the General Election Law of 1903 did not extend or change the term of any officer, this construction of the Court being confined to those holding office at the time the cleo ton law becomes effective. and having no application to subsequently elected officefs under this Act
 Tt Is also clear that the effect of the general provisions of this Act. which appoint time for holding a general election for certain officers (section 27 of the Election Law of 1s0s) was to create Q term of four yearsN for the officers mentioned in said section.
 Tt has been suggested that the pro- viso and exception in the Act of isS9 was repealed by the General Election Law of 1903 not only because of the repugnancy between the two statutes, but because the election law of 1908 Is a complete revision of the whole subject of elections.
 Tn this connection 1t is to be ob- served that Sections 1878. ct seq. in Article of the Code of 1896. which is devoted to General Elections, What Oficers Elected and When.' Is also q complete revision of this subject up to that period tFebruary f7th. 1898. the date of the adoption of the Code of ISs6.) Section 1878 of this Code names what officers shall be elected, among those named being County Superin- tendents of Education and Section 1877 provides that. County Superin- tendents of Education shall be elected. except in cases otherwise provided for in August, 1898, and every two years thereafter.f
 'Following the same reasoning. 1t would aDear to be equally true that the proviso and execution of the Aot of 1889 would be repealed for like rea- sons by Article of the Code of 1896. if such contention Is sound.
 "rhe point of prime and paramount importance, therefore, for the purposes of this opinion, is to determine the nature and character of the Act of February 18th. 1889. If this Act Is a special or local law, 1t would not be repealed by Section a560 of the Code of 1S96. or by the General Elec- ton Law of 1903. So the question arises. Is this Act Q special of local law. or Is 1t a general law?
 Tn the case of Baker vs. State, i2a Ala, 1, the court had under considera- ton the act approved. February 2sth, 1887 TO more effectually secure com petent and well qualified turors in the several counties of this State, with the exception that the provisions Of this act shall not apply to the counties of Henry, MOpilS, Oaliass IAllAueEAB Clay, Marengo, Cherokee, Etowah, St. Clair, Coffee, Dale, Greene. Marshall and Montgomery. It will be observed that this act of 1887 is strikingiy similar in character to the act of 1889 under con- sideration. Chief Justice Mcclellan, rendering the. opinion of the court, said:
 " The act of February 7sth. 1887. to more effectualiy secure competent and well qualified jurors in the several counties of this State, with a provision excepting from it's operation certain named counties, was a general and not a local or special law; 1t applied in general terms to the State excepting certain counties, and not to certain counties designated by name to the ex- ciusion of the State generally; and 1t was not within the saving clause of section 10. of the Code of 1898. but was a public law of a general and per- manent nature which was superseded and repealed or merged by or in the Code provisions covering the same sub ject'
 This same act was passed on again in the case of Childress vs State, 122 Ala, 21. and the Supreme Court held that 1t was general and not a local or special law, notwithstanding the ex- clusion of some counties from it's operation; and its several provisions being embodied in the Code of 1896. were re-enacted by the adoption of said Code.
 Again in Mitchell vs. State, 129 Ala, 23, the Supreme Court had another oc- casion to consider this act of February