The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1908-06-16

made in that case that the borough
OF Merchantvile was not author lZde
by law to build a sewage. disposal
plant in the adjoining township Of
BensaukeD. the court disposed OF
the case without, referring 10 the
township act OF 1899, evidently be-
cause it was thought that the Ques-
ton was entirely governed by the
borough act of 1897.
All of these acts were passed before
the act of 1902 under which Morris
town is proceeding. That act not
only carefully omits any restriction as
to the place where disposal works
may be built, but in express terms
authorizes the construction of DISPOSAL
works within or without the town
section y. This power is repeated in
section IL. In neither section is the
consent of any other municipality re-
quired. This omission is most signi-
ticant in view Of the other legislation
requiring such consent which we must
presume was present to the mind of
the legislature. 1t is made more en-
phatic because in section IL immed-
lately following the authority to con-
struct disposal works, provision is
made for an agreement between the
board of sewerage and the authorities
of the other municipalities as to the
terms upon which the sewers may be
constructed through the streets and
highways, with an appeal TO the cir
cult court to appoint commissioners
to determine the streets and fix the
terms upon which they may be used
and occupied, in case an agreement
cannot be reached with the municipal
authorities. If the legislature had
meant to require consent to the con-
Struction of disposal works, it would
have inserted 1t at this point where
the mind is naturally directed to the
question by the somewhat analogous
question OF the use of streets. 1t is
quite evident from the omission in
the one case and the insertion of the
requirement OF an agreement in the
other that the legislature drew a dis
tinction between land the title to
which might be acquired by the town,
and streets or highways which could
be used only subject to the public ease
ment, and did not mean to require
consent Of the other municipality to
the work of the town merely because
it consisted of building sewer sys-
tenn, and might be more or less OBJ
jectiOnable.
1T is quite true that the act of 1907
contains no express repeal of the acts
of 1892, 1895, or 1899, that implied re-
pealers are not favored, and that there
Is no necessary repugnancy between ar
act authorizing town to build sew
age disposal works and an earlier act
requiring the consent of municipal
ity before another can build such
works within its bounds. But ever
when there is no express repeal and or
necessary repugnancy, If it is plain that
it is the legislative intent TO embrace
the whole subject or to provide q
scheme complete in itself, the latel
act supersedes the earlier. Roche v
Jersey City, III Vroom, 257. DeGinthel
v. New Jersey Home, 29 Vroom, 1854
Camden v. Varney, "a Vroom 1926
The rule does not rest strictly upon
the ground of repeal by implication
but upon the principle that when the
! legislature frames a new statute upJr
the subject matter, and from the
| framework of the act it is apparent
that the legislature designed a com
plete scheme, it is legislative decla
ration that whatever is embraced IL
the new law shall prevail, and what
ever is excluded is discarded. Roche
v. Jersey City. The question Is one o.
legislative intent, and the Court 81
Errors and Appeals has held, follow
ing the Roche case that when latel
law deals generally with the subject
Of earlier statutes, not simply as a re
vision, but as a new and Independent
enactment, that affords decisive evi
dence Of an intent to abrogate and re
peal the Older legislation. Haynes Y
Cape May, % Vroom $50, 1872. This Il
so even though the scheme is not alb