In re Opinion of the Justices
Decision Date | 21 September 1921 |
Citation | 114 A. 865 |
Parties | In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Answers to questions propounded to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court by the Legislature.
In House of Representatives, April 7, 1921. In accordance with report of joint com mittees on Judiciary and Military Affairs accepted in the House of Representatives April 5, 1921, on bill for an act entitled, "An act to create the National Guard Pay Fund": Ordered, the Senate concurring, that, according to the provisions of the Constitution of this state, the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court are hereby respectfully requested to give this Legislature their opinion on the following questions:
Question No. 1. Is chapter 101 of the Resolves of 1917, taken in connection with the intention of the Legislature in passing said resolve as expressed by the motions and speeches regarding it in the official stenographic records, repealed by chapters 276 and 277 of the Public Laws of 1917?
Question No. 2. If said resolve is not so repealed, did compliance by the state with said chapters 276 and 277 constitute compliance with said chapter 101?
House of Representatives. April 7, 1921, read and passed. Sent up for concurrence.
Clyde R. Chapman, Clerk. In Senate Chamber. April 8, 1921, read and passed. L. Ernest Thornton, Secretary. A true copy, Attest:
L. Ernest Thornton, Secretary of Senate.
To the Legislature of Maine: The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court hereby give the following answers upon the questions submitted under joint order of the Senate and House of Representatives finally passed on April 8, 1921: Question No. 1 is as follows:
"Is chapter 101 of the Resolves of 1917, taken in connection with the intention of the Legislature in passing said resolve, as expressed by the motions and speeches regarding it in the official stenographic records, repealed by chapters 276 and 277 of the Public Laws of 1917?"
Answer: Chapter 101 of the Resolves of 1917 reads as follows:
Approved April 7, 1917.
The history of the legislation is as follows:
This resolve was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 2, 1917, and in its original form provided a definite sum of "one dollar for each and every day," instead of "not exceeding the sum of one dollar for each and every day."
The resolve was tabled on April 2d for 24 hours to await the drafting of the so-called military laws.
On April 3d it was taken from the table, and after some debate, the draft of military laws not having been completed, it took its two readings in the House and was tabled on its passage to be engrossed. Later in the same day the resolve was taken from the table, and upon the reported suggestion of the Governor was amended, so that the amount should read "not exceeding the sum of one dollar," instead of "the sum of one dollar," and was then passed to be engrossed in the House. It was finally passed in both branches, and was approved April 7, carrying an emergency clause.
An act to provide for the support of families of volunteers.
Then follow provisions for the amounts to be paid, the method of payment and accounting and reimbursement by the state.
This bill, which carried an emergency clause, was introduced in the House on April 6, 1917, by the same member who introduced the resolve, chapter 101, already considered, and at the time of its introduction this member stated that when the proper time arrived he would move the indefinite postponement of the prior resolve. But such indefinite postponement was not subsequently moved. The resolve was finally passed, and this bill was finally enacted, both being approved on the same day, April 7.
Whether this was because of an excusable oversight amid the rush of business in the closing days of the session, or whether it was afterwards decided that, because of the elastic provision in the resolve as amended as to amount, its passage could do little practical harm, it is of course impossible to state. In any event the resolve was duly passed, and was not expressly repealed.
Did the passage of chapter 276 repeal it by implication? We think not. In order to effect a repeal by implication, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. London
...A. 662; Harris' Case, 124 Me. 68, 126 A. 166; Newport v. Maine Cent. Railroad Co., 123 Me. 383, 387, 123 A. 172; In re Opinion of the Justices, 120 Me. 566, 569, 114 A. 865; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, Sec. 543; 82 C.J.S. Statutes §§ 291, The Court will if possible give effect to both statutes an......
-
Eaton v. State
...Rule 7(b) was repugnant to, and inconsistent with, the retention of the word 'statute' in Section 701(1). See Opinion of the Justices, 120 Me. 566, 569, 114 A. 865, 866 (1921). Recognizing obvious legislative intent, we conclude that this word had 'no further force or effect' subsequent to ......