statute repealed and re-enacted continue in force without intermission.56 The statutory construction law of New York limiting the effect of repealing statutes is not limited to acts reported by the statutory revision committee, but applies to all subsequent legislation.57

§ 283. Same Subject Continued. If two acts cannot be harmonized the later act prevails to the extent of the repugnancy; they should, however, be reconciled if possible on any reasonable basis,58 or effect be given to both.59 Without express words of repeal a previous statute will also be held modified or repealed by a subsequent one if the later is plainly intended to supersede the earlier act and to cover the whole subject embraced by both, and to prescribe the only rules, in

56 Gull River Lumber Co v. Lee, 7 N. Dak. 135, 73 N. W. 430. See also Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. (69 U. S.) 450, 17 L. ed. 805.

57 Village of Champlain v. McCrea, 165 N. Y. 264; People, City of Niagara Falls, v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. Co., 158 N. Y. 410; People, City of Buffalo, v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. Co., 156 N. Y. 570, 51 N. E. 312, rev'g 50 N. Y. Supp. 1132, 25 App. Div. 632.

V.

58 United States: Gibson United States, 194 U. S. 182, 48 L. ed. 926, 24 Sup. Ct. 613; United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U. S. 213, 22 Sup. Ct. 629, 46 L. ed. 878; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. United States, 127 U. S. 406, 8 Sup. Ct. 1194, 32 L. ed. 180; Beals v. Hale, 4 How. (45 U. S.) 37, 11 L. ed. 865.

Arkansas: Porter v. Waterman, 77 Ark. 383, 91 S. W. 574.

Illinois: Kenaga v. Kerr, 123 Ill. 659, 14 N. E. 671; Hunt v. Chicago, H. & D. R. Co., 121 Ill. 638, 13 N. E. 176. See Bastian v. Modern Woodmen of America, 166 Ill. 595, 46 N. E. 1090, rev'g 68 App. Ill. 378.

Indiana: State, Hudspeth, v. Cooper, 114 Ind. 1, 16 N. E. 518; Pennsylvania Co. v. Dunlap, 112 Ind. 93, 13 N. E. 403.

Iowa: Straight v. Crawford, 73 Iowa, 676, 35 N. W. 920.

Kentucky: Weddell v. Commonwealth, 84 Ky. 276, 1 S. W. 480.

New Jersey: Plum v. Lugar, 49 N. J. 557, 9 Atl. 779.

Tennessee: McCampbell v. State, 116 Tenn. 98, 93 S. W. 100.

So Where two statutes cover, in whole or in part, the same matter, and are not absolutely irreconcilable, and no purpose to repeal the earlier is expressed or clearly indicated, the court will, if possible, give effect to both. Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46, 39 L. ed. 614, 15 Sup. Ct. 532.

In the absence of any repealing clause, it is necessary to the implication of a repeal that the objects of the two statutes are the same. If they are not, both statutes will stand, though they refer to the same subject. United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546, 24 L. ed. 1082.

60

respect to that subject, which are to govern. But a statute will not operate to repeal a prior statute merely because it repeats some of the provisions of the prior act, and omits others, or adds new provisions; but in such cases the later enactment operates as a repeal of the former one only when it plainly appears that it was intended as a substitute for the first act.61 If a state statute and a Federal statute operate upon the same subject-matter, and prescribe different rules concerning it, and the Federal statute is one within the competency of Congress to enact, the state statute must give away.62 As a rule of construction a statute amended is to be understood in the same sense exactly as if it had read from the beginning as it does amended.63 An amendatory or additional act which is germane to the original act is to be construed in conjunction with such original enactment unless an intent clearly appears to the contrary; 64 and this applies to an act of incorporation, being in pari materia.65

60 United States: Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206, 33 L. ed. 879, 10 Supp. Ct. 527; Davies v. Fairbairn, 3 How. (44 U. S.) 636, 11 L. ed. 760.

02 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. ed. 910, 15 Sup. Ct. 802.

63 Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400, 50 L. ed. 801, 26 Sup. Ct. 427; Peters

California: Cerf v. Reichert, 73 v. Vawter, 10 Mont. 201, 25 Pac. 438.

See also McGuire v. Chicago, Burling73 ton & Quincy Rd. Co., 131 Iowa, 340, 108 N. W. 902. Examine Building 86 & Loan Assoc. v. Sohn, 54 W. Va. 101, 46 S. E. 222.

64 McGuire v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rd. Co., 131 Iowa, 340, 108 N. W. 902; Woodall v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (Mass., 1906), 78 N. E. 446; People v. Michigan Cent.

Nebraska: State v. Omaha Elevator Co. (Neb., 1906), 106 N. W. 979. New Jersey: Hotel Registry Realty Corp. v. Stafford, 70 N. J. L. 528, 57 Atl. 145. Tennessee: Terrell v. State, 86 Rd. Co. (Mich., 1906), 108 N. W. Tenn. 523, 8 S. W. 212.

See last preceding note herein.

01 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 127 U. S. 406, 32 L. ed. 180, 8 Sup. Ct. 1194; Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596, 27 L. ed. 251, 1 Sup. Ct. 434.

772, 13 Det. Leg. N. 552; Village of Portchester, In re Locust Ave., 97 N. Y. Supp. 508, 110 App. Div. 774, case aff'd and modified 185 N. Y. 115, 77 N. E. 1012.

65 Meyer v. Johnston, 53 Ala. 237, 321.

67

$281. Same Subject Continued-Instances. -Renewals of charters granted after an enactment providing for repeal or amendment of all charters are subject to the statute though it expressly provides that it shall only apply to charters to be subsequently granted.66 And a statute which grants to all corporations the right to obtain amendments to their charters in a certain way does not conflict with a prior statute, granting to railroad companies the right to change their termini at any time before final location of the road, so as to repeal it by implication. A constitutional requirement that an act or section amended shall be re-enacted and published at length does not apply to a special act of incorporation of a railroad company granting it all the privileges, immunities, etc., of a certain general railroad law, as such special act is neither a revision or amendment.68 If an act authorizing the organization of mutual insurance companies is so complete in itself as to repeal even impliedly all prior inconsistent laws, a constitutional provision requiring the section or sections amended to be contained in the new enactment does not apply. An act amending "an act to facilitate the construction of railroads" is not repealed by the failure of the legislature to incorporate it in a revision of the statutes.70 Where a statute is a public act a subsequent act which is amendatory and supplementary is also a public one." A statute which regulates passenger and freight rates does not impliedly repeal prior laws on the subject when not irreconcilably repugnant thereto or where it is not apparent that such later enactment was intended to comprehend the entire subject and so supersede the prior laws.72 The liability of a railroad company for death

"Northern Bank v. Stone (C. C.), 88 Fed. 413.

G Memphis & State Line Rd. Co. V. Union Ry. Co., 116 Tenn. 500, 95 S. W. 1019.

65

69

Quinlan v. Houston & T. C. R. county). Co., 89 Tex. 356, 34 S. W. 738.

72 Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill, 155

Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moore, Fed. 756. 48 Neb. 870, 67 N. W. 876.

by negligence arising before repeal of a statute providing therefor is not affected by such repeal.73 The operation of a statute providing for an indictment for unlawful discrimination in transportation of passengers is merely suspended for one day where such enactment is repealed on a day certain and it is re-enacted verbatim to take effect on the next following day 74

76

285. Same Subject Instances Continued - Taxation and Assessment.-A statute covering the subject-matter of all acts as to assessment and taxation and containing a repealing clause and provisions inconsistent with a prior act as to the power of cities to tax and assess property, repeals such inconsistent statute.75 But a special act as to the power to tax to pay bridge bonds of a county is not repealed by a general law limiting the power of counties as to taxation. And a general statute taxing every railroad company will not operate to repeal a charter exemption of a corporation." A statute, however, which provides a general scheme for assessing and taxing the property of railroad and telegraph companies as a whole, and for distributing it ratably among the different counties, and their several precincts, townships and districts, according to the number of miles of line in each, repeals, as to such property, a power conferred upon the authorities of a city to make provisions for the assessment of the taxes which they were authorized by other provisions of the city charter to assess and collect.78 Again, a provision of an act relating to a situs of stock of foreign corporations for taxation is not repealed by implication by omission of such provision from a compiled code."

73 Culpepper v. International & G. N. R. Co., 90 Tex. 627, 40 S. W. 386, aff'g 38 S. W. 818; Albrecht v. Milwaukee & S. R. Co., 94 Wis. 397, 69 N. W. 63. See State v. Maine C. R. Co., 90 Me. 267, 38 Atl. 158 (repeal; remedy by indictment for death caused by negligence superseded by civil remedy).

74 State v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. C., 1899), 34 S. E. 527.

75 State, Ross, v. Kelly, 45 S. C. 457, 23 S. E. 281.

70 Burnett v. Maloney, 97 Tenn. 697, 37 S. W. 689, 34 L. R. A. 541. 77 Commonwealth v. Richmond & P. R. Co., 81 Va. 355.

78 Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cheyenne, 113 U. S. 516, 5 Sup. Ct. 601, 28 L. ed. 1098.

79 Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Wright, 124 Ga. 596, 53 S. E. 251,

$286. Construction of Statutes, Charters and Ordinances -Miscellaneous Cases. -Where the legislature has classified suburban and interurban railroads with street railroads, the laws governing the latter will govern as to the former 80 If a corporation chartered prior to the existing constitution of a State is wound up and all of its property, contracts and obligations transferred by ordinance to a new corporation, the ordinance must be construed in connection with the constitution and such provisions for further control as are therein contained.81 Although the language of a statute provides for the renewal of a street railway franchise upon the expiration thereof, such grants may be extended before their expiration, and in construing municipal ordinances relating to such extensions it may be reasonably presumed that no provision escaped attention or was misunderstood.82 The generally inclusive terms of the Bush Act are to be interpreted with reference to the State's plenary power over its purely internal commerce, and over foreign corporations seeking to engage in such commerce; and, so interpreted, the law applies to all foreign corporations not engaged in interstate commerce, or business for the Federal government, and to all foreign corporations engaged in interstate commerce or business for the Federal government to the extent that they must comply with its requirements in order to engage in non-governmental interstate business.83 A provision in an act of Congress incorporating a bank which requires that the capital stock shall consist of a certain number of shares of a certain amount each is not a condition precedent.84 A clause in a charter that it

case reversed in Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Wright, 207 U. S. 127, upon the point that due process of law requires an opportunity to be heard, as to the validity of a tax and the amount of assessment, to be given a taxpayer.

*Cincinnati & H. E. St. Ry. Co. v. Cincinnati, H. & I. R. Co., 12 Ohio C. D. 113.

"San Antonio Traction Co. v.

Altgelt, 200 U. S. 304, 26 Sup. Ct. 261, 50 L. ed. 491.

82 Cleveland Electric Ry. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 135 Fed. 368, aff'd Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Ry. Co., 201 U. S. 529, 50 L. ed. 854.

83 State v. Western Union Teleg. Co. (Kan., 1907), 90 Pac, 299.

84 Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet. (26 U. S.) 46, 7 L, ed, 47.