Agricultural & Mechanical College v. Lacy

[369] Cook, J., after stating the case. Was'Section 10 of Chapter 549, Acts of 1891, repealed bj Chapter 146, Acts of 1895? . This, is the issue raised by the facts agreed and presented for our decision by the case on appeal. Defendant contends that while the repeal is not in express termsy' yet it is by necessary implication. This contention is handicapped in the outset with the presumption against it. A statute will not be construed as repealing a prior one on the' same subject (in the absence of express words to that effect) unless there is an irreconcilable repugnancy between them, or unless the new law is evidently intended to supersede the prior one upon the subject and to comprise in itself the sole apd complete system of legislation' on that subject. Black on Interpretation of Laws, page 112; Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, Sec. 210; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Sec. 138. The two acts now being construed being affirmative, and the subject being such that both may stand together, they both should have concurrent efficacy (1 Blk.. 90), unless they be repugnant or inconsistent, or it should appear that the Legislature intended to cover the whole subject embraced in both and to prescribe the only rule in respect of that subject in the later act. State v. Davis, 129 N. C., 570. Bearing in mind this rule of construction, a careful perusal of the act (Chapter 549, Acts 1891) creating and incorporating the plaintiff college, and construing the subsequent acts by which appropriations of money were made for its use, with reference to it, leads us to the conclusion that it was not intended by the Legislature to repeal any provision therein made. The general purpose for which it was created, the duties imposed upon its Board of Trustees, and the expenses necessary and incidental to its management, clearly show that the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars therein annually appro [370] priated was intended for organization expenses “in carrying out tbe provisions of this act,” and not for tbe general purpose of supporting, maintaining and developing tbe institution. Its management and control, and tbe care and preservation of all its property, are vested in tbe Board of Trustees. Eor tbeir services they “are entitled to* tbe same per diem and mileage as compensation for attendance upon tbe meetings of tbe Board as are now allowed by law to tbe members of tbe General Assembly.” (This compensation was changed by Chapter 389, Acts 1899, to travelling expenses and hotel fare.) There is imposed upon them tbe power of prescribing rules for tbe management and preservation of good order and morals, tbe appointment of its president, instructors and other officers, servants, etc., to fix salaries, have charge of tbe disbursement of funds, and to have general and entire supervision of tbe establishment and maintenance, to receive any donation of property, real or personal, and to invest or expend tbe same for tbe benefit of tbe college, to locate the college, to make temporary provision pending tbe furnishing of tbe site, buildings, etc. Eor none of these expenses do we find any provision made in any of the subsequent acts. Tbe act of 1893 appropriated $5,000 per year for 1893 and 1894,. “for tbe purpose of completing, erecting and furnishing said buildings.” Tbe act of 1895 appropriated $5,000 annually “for tbe support, maintenance, equipment, enlargement and extension, * * * to* be paid on tbe first days of April and October of each year.” Tbe act of 1897 appropriated $5,000 “for tbe maintenance and equipment * * * for each of tbe years 1897 and 1898, to be paid in instalments of $2,500 on tbe first days of April and October.” Tbe act of 1901 appropriated $5,000 “for each of tbe years 1901 and 1902, in addition to its standing appropriation, * * * if tbe Board of Education shall transfer,” etc. (which has not been done). [371] The entire act of 1895 is quoted in the case (except the enacting and ratification clauses). It has no repealing clause; it makes no reference to the organic act; it makes no provision for the necessary organization expenses; it appoints specific days (first days of April and October) for the payments of its appropriations, while payments of the other appropriation (in common with others of like kind) are made with reference to the beginning of the fiscal year, December 1. If it was the intent of the Legislature of 1895 to appropriate $5,000 annually for the purpose therein declared, in addition to the amount appropriated in the organic act, then it- has done so clearly and without doubt. But if it intended to make this to cover and in substitution for and to' repeal the other, then we fail to find any expression or suggestion to indicate such intent. There is no revisal of the organic act. The two acts are not inconsistent or repugnant, but aro in harmony. The former would be totally inadequate to meet the future needs of the institution, and the latter makes no provision for paying the Trustees for their services, nor for other necessary expenses in managing its affairs. Its rapid growth and increasing needs are shown by the special appropriation of $5,000 per annum for each of the years 1893, 1894, 1897 and 1898 for completing, erecting and furnishing the buildings, maintenance and equipment, and also the one for 1901 and 1902 “in addition to its standing appropriation.” With this increase of property and progress in promoting one of its institutions of learning and usefulness, accompanied with a like increase of responsibilities and cares, we would not be justified in holding that the Legislature intended to deprive it of that sum of money, which it had provided for carrying out the provisions of the act in preserving and caring for its property, and in utilizing beneficially the [372] means obtainable in giving force and effect to the aims and purposes for which the institution was created. We find no error in the ruling of his Honor in holding that the appropriation made under the act of 1895 was auxiliary, or in addition to the sum appropriated by Section 10 of the act of 1891, and the judgment is Affirmed.