whatsoever, shall be introduced, or entertained in either house of the General Assembly except by petition, to be signed by the persons desiring such privilege, of which sixty days' notice shall be given to all persons interested, and be published in the newspaper having the largest circulation in the county where such privilege is to be enjoyed, once a week for three weeks, etc.

As this is not a constitutional provision, but a general law enacted by the legislature, it may be repealed, amended or disregarded by the legislature which enacted it. This law was doubtless intended as a guide to persons desiring to petition the legislature for special privileges, and it would be a good answer to any petition for the granting of such privileges that the required notice had not been given; but it is not binding upon any subsequent legislature, nor does a non-compliance with it impair or nullify the provisions of an act passed without the requirement of such notice.

There was no error in the action of the court below, and its judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

PETRI v. F. E. CREELMAN LUMBER COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 49. Argued November 7, 1905. Decided December 4, 1905.

Where it is plainly apparent on the record that the only matters tried and decided in the Circuit Court were demurrers to pleas to the jurisdiction, and the petition upon which the writ o: error was allowed asked only for the review of the judgment which decided that the court had no jurisdiction, no bill of exceptions or formal certificate in respect to the matter decided is required and the writ of error will not be dismissed because authenticated

by a judge other than the trial judge and not made at the term in which the judgment was entered.

The rule that repeals by implication are not favored and a repeal will not be implied unless there be an irreconcilable conflict between the two statutes applies especially where the prior law is a special act relating to a particular case or subject and the subsequent law is general in its operation. The special provisions of the act of March 2, 1887, 24 Stat. 442, relating to judicial districts of Illinois, were not repealed by the general terms of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat.

PLAINTIFFS in error, suing as aliens and residents of Antwerp, Belgium, commenced this action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois, to recover damages for an alleged libel. Two Illinois corporations and a number of persons were made defendants. The bill as to the corporations alleged citizenship in Illinois, and, as to all the defendants, except the Creelman Lumber Company and F. E. Creelman, one of the individual defendants, the bill alleged that the defendants resided in the district and division where the suit was brought. The Creelman Lumber Company and F. E. Creelman filed pleas to the jurisdiction of the court, based upon the fact that each of them, before and at the time of the commencement of the suit, although citizens of the State of Illinois, were residents of a different district from the one in which the suit was brought, that is, the Southern District of Illinois. To these pleas the plaintiffs demurred, and, on a hearing, a District Judge, holding the Circuit Court, overruled the demurrers, and held the pleas to the jurisdiction good. The plaintiffs electing to stand upon their demurrers to the pleas, the action as to the defendants in question was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Some time afterwards a bill of exceptions was signed by a Circuit Judge, in which was recited the action taken by the trial court upon the demurrer to the jurisdictional pleas aforesaid, and the cause was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals. That court, however, dismissed the writ of error, and on the receipt of its mandate, about a year after the entry of the judgment of dismissal above referred to, there was filed in the trial court

199 U.S.

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

a certificate of the Circuit Judge, in which was set out the proceedings had in the cause, and it was certified, for the purpose of a writ of error from this court, that the only question involved in such writ of error was one of jurisdiction. It was also certified that the judge who had heard the cause resided in the Southern District of Illinois, and was not within the territorial limits of the Northern District of Illinois. Cotemporaneous with the filing of the certificate a writ of error was allowed, and in the petition and assignments of errors it clearly appeared that the writ of error was prosecuted solely upon the question of jurisdiction arising from overruling of the demurrers to the pleas to the jurisdiction.

Mr. Consider H. Willett for plaintiffs in error submitted:

Plaintiffs being aliens, having a cause of action against defendants, citizens of Illinois, some residing in the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois where suit was brought, a duplicate summons could issue to defendants residents of the Southern District of Illinois. T. &c., R. R. v. Atl. &c. R. R., 49 Fed. Rep. 608; Goddard v. Mailler, 80 Fed. Rep. 422; Steel & Iron Co. v. Chormann, 105 Fed. Rep. 532; Hughes Fed. Pro., 234.

Rev. Stat. §740, § 1 of the act of May 4, 1858, 11 Stat. 272, is still in force and effect, and authorized and justified the procedure adopted, and gave the court jurisdiction of the defendants by virtue of the service on them of the duplicate writ. See also act of March 2, 1887, amending § 536, Rev. Stat.; United States v. Fisher, 109 U. S. 143; and the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433.

The fact that the first statute is special and the later statutes are general creates a presumption that the first special statute is to be construed as remaining an exception to the general statutes, such general statutes making no provision for the particular case where more than one defendant are parties to a suit. Pearce v. Bank, 33 Alabama, 693; McFarland v. Bank, 4 Arkansas, 410; Thorp v. Adams, L. R. 5 C. P. 125; Fitzgerald

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

199 U.S.

v. Champenys, 30 L. J. N. S. Eq. 782; State v. Rackley, 2 Indiana, 249; Stockett v. Bird, 18 Maryland, 484, 489; Crane v. Reeder, 22 Michigan, 322; Fosdick v. Ferrysburg, 14 Ohio St. 472; Brown v. County Commissioners, 21 Pa. St. 37; Rounds v. Waymart Borough, 81 Pa. St. 395; Harrisburg v. Sheck, 194 Pa. St. 53; Morrison v. Fayette Co., 127 Pa. St. 110; Murdock's Petition, 149 Pa. St. 341; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556; Rodgers v. United States, 185 U. S. 83.

Rev. Stat., 8740, was not repealed by implication by the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470. Nor by the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, 555, nor by the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, 437. M'Micken v. Webb, 11 Pet. 25; Phillips v. Moore, 100 U. S. 208; United States v. Mooney, 116 U. S. 104; Ames v. Hager, 30 Fed. Rep. 129; E. Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. R. v. Atlanta & Fla. R. R., 49 Fed. Rep. 608; Goddard et al. v. Mailler et al., 80 Fed. Rep. 422.

No statute has attempted to expressly repeal the applicable provisions of the statute and the proper mode of practice is thereby provided. Henderson's Tobacco, 11 Wall. 652.

Where several affirmative statutes relate to the same subject matter, but have different objects, none is repealed, but all stand. Gibson v. Ackerman, 70 Ill. App. 399; Casey v. Harned, 5 Clark (Ia.), 1; Deposit Co. v. Frick, 152 Pa. St. 231; Mills v. State, 23 Texas, 235; United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546; People v. McAllister, 10 Utah, 357; Re Garnett, 11 Utah, 289.

Repeals by implication are not favored. Connor v. So. Express Co., 37 Georgia, 397; Bruce v. Schuyler, 4 Gilm. (Ill.) 221; People v. Barr, 44 Illinois, 198; Casey v. Harned, 5 Clark (Ia.), 1; Goddard v. Boston, 37 Massachusetts (20 Pick.), 407, 410; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum So., 9 Cowen, 437; Dodge v. Gridley, 10 Ohio St. 173; Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342; McCord v. Smith, 1 Black, 459; Arthur v. Homer, 96 U. S. 137; Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556; Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682; Frost v. Wenie, 159 U. S. 46; United States v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136, 147; United States v. New York, 160 U. S. 598, 609; United States v. Great

199 U.S.

Argument for Defendants in Error.

house, 166 U. S. 601, 605; United States v. Lee Yen Tah, 185 U. S. 213.

Mr. David S. Lansden with whom Mr. John M. Lansden, Mr. Angus Leek and Mr. M. Paul Noyes were on the brief, for defendants in error:

The act of March 3, 1875, determining the jurisdiction of Circuit Courts, 18 Stat. 470, is a general independent act intended to recast the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts, and repealed § 740, Rev. Stat., providing that if there were two or more defendants, residing in different districts of a State, a suit not of a local nature might be brought in a district where one of the defendants resided and a duplicate writ issued to the marshal of any other district in which any defendant resided. See also further restriction by the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433.

Defendants in error are inhabitants of the Southern District of Illinois and were served with process in that district. The plaintiffs in error are aliens. The defendants in error, therefore, could not be sued in the Northern District of Illinois, in which district this suit was brought, although the other defendants were residents of said Northern District. McCormick Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41; Denton v. International Company, 36 Fed. Rep. 1; Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 315; Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U. S. 58; Construction Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217; New Jersey Steel & Iron Co. v. Chormann, 105 Fed. Rep. 532; Jenkins v. York Cliffs Co., 110 Fed. Rep. 807; Freeman v. American Surety Co., 116 Fed. Rep. 549; French v. Spencer, 21 How. 228; Gibson v. United States, 194 U. S. 182; M'Iver v. Ragan, 2 Wheat. 25; Denn v. Reid, 10 Pet. 524; United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U. S. 95; Potter's Dwarris, 221; Hankins v. The People, 106 Illinois, 628; Cooley, Const. Lim. 64; Sutherland, Stat. Con. § 328; Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414; Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U. S. 547; National Bank v. Guthrie, 173 U. S. 528; Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U. S. 302; Arms v.