The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-12-04

this act shall reside at Birmingham. in said district. Approved. February 90. 1907.% On April 10. 1907. Honorable Oscar R. Huhdley was appointed dis trict judge under this act. He will be referred to as the second judge. The act of February 25, 1907, contains no express repeal of the prior act giving the first judge Jurisdiction In the Mid dle and Northern Districts. It contains, in ract, no repeating clause of any kind. The question therefore. is, whe. ther the act last passed repeals the prior act by necessary implication.
 Repenls By tmplication.
 s"It has been often held by the Su- prenie Court that Tepeals by implica- tion are not favored. and 1t Is the un- questioned rule that if 1t be possible be held to repeal the other. The lat- ter statute does not repeal the for mer, 'unless the two acts are in ire conctlable conflict, or unless the later pied by the earlier and is clearly in- tended as a substitute for if, and the intention of the IegisiatuTe to repeal must be cleaf and manifest Req
 "A repeal by necessary implication does not occur when the provisions of both statutes can stand together. The jurlsdietson @ dnd Oy in the aS Northern % District, The last statute authorizes the ap- pointment of a judge for the Northern Distrtct: The two statutes & may .;'a s.ane ma conflict, we think. because the first statute causes the first judge to remain the sole judge of the Middle District and to remain a judge of the Northern District, and the second statute makes the second judge judge of the North ern District. They each have field of operation, without conflict. The statutes do not become irreconctlable unless we assume what is not true, that there cannot be two judges of one vided for the appcintnient Of a judge of the Southern District, the act pro- vided that the jarisdicticn of the judge Sf the ,a n6 sdoSa Midds Hs b,a tricts thereby making t plain that should se the sole judge of that dis. lis kind in the act in question. There is tention to confine tho judge of the former district. We cannot interpo. late such words by construction. If the last act had provided for the ap- 1n'RRert P1d RSPthsqn % DstlIets conid nS ads bs claimed that Congress had deprived the first judge entirely of Jurisdiction? Or, of the Northern District and the last ae thad provided for q judge of the Middle and Northern Districts, could be fq nS5 thacs we tSspss Fsp wsy sy
 
 irreconctlable conflict in the one case, there would be In the other.
 Other Considerations.
 There are other considerations be- sides the letter of the act flat lead to the same conclusionsa No provision is made for cases already submitted to the first judge, as would probably have been done if his authority was to cease. Congress. on April IA, 1908, passed an act requiring terms of the courts to be held at Birmingham, in the Northern District. twice each year, on the first Mondays in March and September, and that said courts all remain in open session for the trans action of business at least six months in each calendar. year" 3A Stat. 1i4. There are three other places where courts are required to be held twice a. year in the Northern District. It will probably. be difficult for the second Judge to hold all these terms unaided by the first judge. This act recurring six months open session and specially providing for the assignment Of other Judges, shows that Congress was in- formed as to the fact that additional ern District. Under the. circumstances, if is quite probable that it was it's in. tention. in providing judge for the Northern District. not to. dispense with the services, of the first judge, whose entire time would probably not be re- suired by the work in the Middle Dis- trict.
 ''The fact that the exercise of au-