The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, 1911-10-05

the names OF the payeeS and the
amounts paid each, also specifying
the nature of such Legislation, and
the interest they had in the same.
Section 4 Be it further enacted
that hereafter it shall be unlawful
for the regular retained attorney or
agent, employed for a compensation,
for any person, firm, corporation or
association, whether they have regis
tered as required in the above Sec
ton Of this kct, to go upon the floor
Of either House Of the Legislature,
cuss privately measures then pending
in the Legislature.
Section 5: Any person violating
any of the provisions of the four Sec
lions above, shall be guilty of mis-
demeanor and punished as prescribed
in Section 1865 of the Penal Code
adopted August 18th, 1910.
Section 6: All laws and parts of
laws in conflict with this Act are
hereby repealed.
I have published both Acts so that
your readers may intelligently see
for themselves the two laws and ap-
ply the rules and see if the later act
repeats the former. AS the law says
there are only two ways in which
a law can be repealed: L. By ex-
press words and 2. By necessary, ir-
resistable implication. Now the ques-
ton of repeal by express words is out
Of the discussion. Any one can see
at a glace that the former law is not
even mentioned and that the Con-
stftution requirement that the re-
pealing act shall distinctly describe
the law to be mentioned or repealed
as we'll as the alteration to be made
has not been complied with.
Has it been repealed then by i'm
pl1cation? 1t is only by a stretch of
the Constitution that a repeal by i'm
pllcatlon now exists. The Supreme
Court at first decided that a law
could not be repealed this way. But
later it has been decided that it can
be done. That it is possible to do so,
but that this way is not at all fav-
ored; that the presumption is against
the repeal; and that it never occurs
except where the latter act is clear
ly and Individually contradictory and
contrary to the former act, and the
repugnance is such that the two can
not be recOnciled'
In other words if it is possible to
reconcile the two, both will stand.
The Mcdaniel Act is an act to define
lobbying and fix penalty; the later
act has a different title altogether,
and does not conflict with the old
law The recent act also recognizes
the same fact that the act of rs did,
namely, that parties had a right to
appear and represent themselves or
their principles in securing or defeat
ing legislation, in a legal way. But
the later law says that when you do
come to the capitol for what you
claim. to be a legal right, you must go
to- the Secretary of State and register
and put all on notice what you rep
resent; that admitting that you are
fair and honest employee you must
put the Legislature and the public on
notice that you are at the capitol and
represent certain things. This, in
stead of conflicting with the former
law, is an aid or auxiliary to the
same. 1t points out all representa-
tiVeS of various interests and if there
should be any violation of the old
law Gas has often be claimed) the
new requirement, which does not con-
f1ict with it may aid some one in de-
tecting the lobbyist, so that some one
may be indicted. and the old law