Court Opinion

ID: 9731052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:31:37.096435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:12.531502
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Associate Judge
dissenting.
■ I dissent on the grounds expressed in. our former opinion. I feel that the two cases cited by Judge Clagett as authority for holding that the saving clause in 1 U.S.C.A. § 109 applies herei are distinguishable. Ex parte Lamar dealt with the repeal by the Webb Act of that part of the Sherman Act relating to foreign commerce. The Great Northern Railway case was decided on the basis that the Elkins Act was repealed by the Hepburn Act.. I do not think that striking out the.criminal sanctions of the Rent Act, leaving the Act otherwise basically unchanged, .constituted a “repeal of any statute” within the meaning of the general federal saving clause.
It may be noted also that in the Great Northern Railway case it was said that the provisions of the general saving clause “cannot justify a disregard of the will of Congress as manifested, either expressly or by necessary implication, in a subsequent enactment.” It appears to me that when Congress struck out the criminal sanctions of the Rent Act and made no provision for prosecution' of past violations, it clearly manifested an intent that criminal enforcement of the Act, whether for past or future violations; was finished.