HARVEY B. HURD.

act regulating the balloting of elections, etc., approved June 19, 1885, as amended by act approved June 18, 1891, be amended to read as follows, etc." Then it goes on to recast the entire act, including sections that had been amended at other times than in 1891. Now, if it is true as a matter of law that an amendment of a section of a particular act takes it out of that act, so that a reference to the original act does not identify it, but is invalid, then what shall we say of those sections of this election law that were amended in 1895 and 1897, and to which no reference is made, either in the title or enacting clause of the act of 1899? Are they still in force as the Supreme Court said was the case with reference to Section 19, Art. 9, of the City and Village Act? If so, then the election commissioners and their clerks are still continuing to receive salaries to which they have no legal right. The salaries fixed by the amendment of 1895 are still in force.

You may ask why do I insert in the Revised Statutes these second amendments coming within the condemnation of the decisions to which I have referred. Well, for several reasons. Though I do take the liberty of leaving out acts which have been distinctly held to be unconstitutional, and might, perhaps, be justified in omitting these, yet this and similar questions come up in so many different forms, there is no telling where such a course would lead me. What I do is to insert the amendments, calling attention to these decisions in a foot note. Then again I must confess that I think the Supreme Court is all wrong on this point, and that at some time when the Judges come to see to what absurdities this ruling is leading, and how many statutes are invalidated by it and how little is to be gained by their criticism, they will revise their ruling.

Let us apply the reasoning of the Court to those acts where one section refers to another in the same act, as in the case of the act for the incorporation of fire insurance companies. Sections 1, 2 and 3 provide for incorporation of such

SPECIAL ADDRESS.

companies. Section 8 tells in what securities the capital and funds of companies organized "under this act" may be invested.

The original act was passed in 1869; Secs. 1 and 2 were amended in 1881, and Sec. 8 in 1891. Suppose a company to have been organized after Secs. 1 and 2 were amended. Under what act was it incorporated, if as a matter of law, Secs. 1 and 2 of the act of 1869 were repealed by the amendatory act of 1881, and can not be identified by reference to the original act? Again, when Sec. 8, as amended in 1891, speaks of any insurance company organized "under this act,” what act does it mean if that section as amended is not still a part of the original act? The whole question is simply one of identification.

There is no great principle at stake requiring so narrow a construction as the Supreme Court has given. The Constitution does not demand it. There is nothing in the language used by the legislature in such cases, that demands it. On the contrary, it seems to me the language used in these amendatory acts says as plainly as language can say, that the section as amended shall continue to occupy its place in the original act; be read and construed with it and be so designated whenever it is spoken of; only that it shall be changed in its reading as prescribed in the amendatory act. Let us take as an example the language used in making the first amendment to Sec. 19. Art. 9, of the City and Village Act. It is as follows: Be it enacted, etc., that Sec. 19, of Art. 9, of an act entitled "An act to provide for the incorporation of cities and Villages, approved April 12, in force July 1, 1872, be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows: Section 19," then follows the section as it is intended it shall read. Can there be anything plainer than that the Legislature intended that section to be continued in its amended form as Section 19 of Art. 9, to be read with Art. 9, and construed as a part of it, and it may be identified as such?

HARVEY B. HURD.

The practice of relying upon the general repealing clause, "All acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act are hereby repealed," instead of specifically repealing the acts and parts of acts that are in conflict and thus getting them out of the way, is an exceedingly bad practice. It tends to carelessness on the part of the legislature and confusion of the laws. The legislature seems to think this clause will ransack the entire body of the statutes, search out, repeal and expunge by its own vigor, all conflicting statutes. On the contrary, the conflicting statutes still remain and must be reprinted with the live ones the same as if they remained unrepealed. This clause but expresses a rule of the common law and adds nothing to the repealing effect of the new law. The last expression of the legislature repeals whatever is in conflict with it as well without these words as with them. It is the duty of the legislature to know what acts and parts of acts are in conflict, and repeal them in distinct terms and get them out of the statutes. The best revision of statutes is one that commences and proceeds with the successive amendments. It was thought this would be the effect of the clause in the constitution requiring the section amended to be "inserted at length in the new act." Unfortunately, this clause is itself the occasion of mistakes and confusion, unless care is taken to harmonize the new act with others which it may repeal or amend by implication.