the first Wednesday in July following the filing of the petition. In 1889 the same section was again amended, the latter act declaring that the section should be amended by inserting certain provisions as to the qualifications of voters at such elections, and that as a result of such amendment the section would read "as follows," and re-enacted the old section as to the time of elections. It was held that the amendment of 1883 was not repealed, but remained in force and continued to prescribe the time of election." But it is a question of intent, and in some cases the intermediate act is held to be repealed.34

35

§ 235. When section subdivided into clauses or paragraphs. In Indiana it has been held that if the section is subdivided into clauses or paragraphs, and an amendment is made affecting one only of the clauses or paragraphs, the entire section must nevertheless be included in the amendatory statute; it must be reconstructed entire as it is intended in the future to operate. But in other states it has been held that where a section is divided into numbered clauses or paragraphs, each such clause or paragraph may be treated as a section for purposes of amendment; that is, that it will be sufficient to set forth the particular clause or paragraph amended without setting out all the clauses or paragraphs of the section.36

§ 236. Discrepancy between amendment specified and section as amended. It is not necessary that an amendatory statute should specify the amendment to be made and

33 Reeves v. Gay, 92 Ga. 309, 18 S. E. 61. To same effect, State v. Black, 34 S. C. 194, 13 S. E. 361; Horn v. State, 114 Ga. 509, 40 S. E. 768.

34 Columbia Wire Co. v. Boyce, 104 Fed. 172, 44 C. C. A. 588; Heinze v. Butte, etc. Min. Co., 107 Fed. 165, 46 C. C. A. 219; McDermott v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 85 Hun, 422, 32 N. Y. S. 884. See post, § 273.

35 Town of Martinsville v. Frieze, 33 Ind. 507.

36 State v. Kearney, 49 Neb. 325, 337, 68 N. W. 533, 70 N. W. 255; State v. Frank, 61 Neb. 679, 85 N. W. 956; Nobles v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. App. 330, 42 S. W. 978. To same effect, Beatrice v. Masslich, 108 Fed. 743, 47 C. C. A. 657.

37

also set out the section as amended. But this is frequently done. If there is a discrepancy between the recital of the proposed amendment and the amendment as it appears in the section as set forth at length and complete, the latter controls. It is not only the latest expression of the legis lative intent, but the essential part of the amendatory act under the constitution. "This view," says the supreme court of Minnesota in the case cited, "would seem to give best expression to the real intent of the legislature, who were more likely to have assented to the paragraph which is extended according to its tenor than to the introductory clause." But where both the title and body of an act indicated that a certain amendment was to be made, but the section set forth as amended omitted certain words of the indicated amendment which made a material change in the amendment as indicated by both the title and body of the act, it was held that the omission was a clerical mistake and the act was read as if the words were in.38 And in Wisconsin, whose constitution does not contain the provision in question, it is held that, where an amendatory act provides that a section be amended in a specified manner so that the section when amended shall read "as follows," and the amendment as contained in the section set forth differs from the amendment previously specified, the latter will control.39 § 237 (133). Effect of amendment "so as to read as follows." The constitutional provision requiring amendments to be made by setting out the whole section as amended was not intended to make any different rule as to the effect of such amendments. So far as the section is changed it must receive a new operation, but so far as it is

37 Gilbert v. Georgia R. R. & B. Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S. E. 673; Hart v. State, 113 Ga. 939, 39 S. E. 321; Howard v. Bangor & A. R. R. Co., 86 Me. 387, 29 Atl. 1101; Loper v. State, 82 Minn. 71, 84 N. W. 650; Scott v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 38 Mo. App. 523.

38 Abernathy v. Michell, 113 Ga. 127, 38 S. E. 303; Ball v. Mapp, 114 Ga. 349, 40 S. E. 272.

39 Custin v. Viroqua, 67 Wis. 314. 30 N. W. 515; State v. Stillman. 81 Wis. 124, 51 N. W. 260; Svennes v. West Salem, 114 Wis. 650,91 N. W. 121.

not changed it would be dangerous to hold that the mere nominal re-enactment should have the effect of disturbing the whole body of statutes in pari materia which had been passed since the first enactment. There must be something in the nature of the new legislation to show such an intent with reasonable clearness before an implied repeal can be recognized." "By observing the constitutional form of amending a section of a statute," says the court in one case, "the legislature does not express an intention then to enact the whole section as amended, but only an intention then to enact the change which is indicated. Any other rule of construction would surely introduce unexpected results and work great inconvenience." 42

The amendment operates to repeal all of the section amended not embraced in the amended form.43 The por

40 Small v. Lutz, 41 Ore. 570, 67 Nash v. White's Bank, 37 Hun, 57; Pac. 421, 69 Pac. 825. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Troy Steel Co., 33 Misc. 484, 68 N. Y. S. 915; Fargo v. Ross, 11 N. D. 369, 92 N. W. 449; Reid v. Smoulter, 128 Pa. St. 324, 18 Atl. 445; Sener v. Ephrata, 176 Pa. St. 80, 34 Atl. 954; Somers v. Commonwealth, 97 Va. 759, 33 S. E. 384; Bierer v. Blurok, 9 Wash. 63, 36 Pac. 975; Nudgett v. Liebes, 14 Wash. 482, 45 Pac. 19; Ashland Water Co. v. Ashland County, 87 Wis. 209, 58 N. W. 235. Amendatory acts should not receive a forced construction to

41 Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136, 45 Pac. 1068; Gordon v. People, 44 Mich. 485, 7 N. W. 69; Ely v. Holton, 15 N. Y. 595; Moore v. Mausert, 49 id. 332; People v. Supervisors, 67 N. Y. 109, 23 Am. St. Rep. 94; Burwell v. Tullis, 12 Minn. 572; Alexander v. State, 9 Ind. 337; Longlois v. Longlois, 48 id. 60-64; Benton v. Wickwire, 54 N. Y. 226; The Borrowdale, 39 Fed. 376. See Powers v. Shepard, 48 N. Y. 540.

42 State v. Newark, 57 N. J. L. make them repealing statutes. Lu298, 301, 30 Atl. 543.

43 Medical College v. Muldon, 46 Ala. 603; Ratcliff v. People, 22 Colo. 75, 43 Pac. 553; Basnett v. Jacksonville, 19 Fla. 664; State v. Routh, 61 Minn. 205, 63 N. W. 621; Rundlett v. St. Paul, 64 Minn. 223, 66 N. W. 967; Shadewald v. Phillips, 72 Minn. 520, 75 N. W. 717; Helena v. Rogan, 27 Mont. 135, 69 Pac. 709;

cas County v. Chicago. Burlington & Q. Ry. Co., 67 Iowa, 541, 25 N. W. 769. In Bank of Metropolis v. Faber, 150 N. Y. 200, 44 N. E. 779, the court, after referring to the general rule that when a section is amended "so as to read as follows" the section amended is repealed, says: "That rule is not so absolute and unqualified as not to be made

tions of the amended sections which are merely copied without change are not to be considered as repealed and again enacted, but to have been the law all along; and the new parts or the changed portions are not to be taken to have been the law at any time prior to the passage of the amended act. The change takes effect prospectively according to the general rule." But all the provisions of the prior law amended which continue in force after the passage of the amendatory act derive their force thereafter not from the original but the amendatory act, and as to the future the old act or section is repealed in toto.45 A repeal of that act would not revive the provisions as originally enacted. On the contrary, a repeal of the amendatory act

46

to yield to a contrary intention & Eng. Corp. Cas. 551; Kamerick when it is to be found in the nat- v. Castleman, 21 Mo. App. 587; ure of the case, in the language State v. Andrews, 20 Tex. 230; Mcemployed and in the course of con- Mullen v. Guest, 6 Tex. 275; Statetemporaneous legislation on the v. Baldwin, 45 Conn. 134; Alexsubject." p. 207. ander v. State, 9 Ind. 337; Cordell v. State, 22 id. 1; Martindale v. Martindale, 10 id. 566; Fullerton v. Spring, 3 Wis. 667; Stingle v. Nevel, 9 Ore. 62; Laude v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 33 Wis. 640; Glentz v. State, 38 id. 549; Powers v. Shepard, 48 N. Y. 540; United Hebrew B. Ass'n v. Benshimol, 130 Mass. 325; Morrisse v. Royal British Bank, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 67; Middleton v. New Jersey, etc. Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 269.

44 Ely v. Holton, 15 N. Y. 595; Moore v. Mausert, 49 id. 332; Nash v. White's Bank, 37 Hun, 57; Syracuse Savings Bank v. Town of Seneca Falls, 86 N. Y. 317; Goillotel v. Mayor, etc., 87 N. Y. 441; Calhoun v. Delhi, etc. R. R. Co., 28 Hun, 379; Kerlinger v. Barnes, 14 Minn. 526; New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 N. Y. 473, 477; Murray v. Gibson, 15 How. 421, 14 L. Ed. 755; Gamble v. Beattie, 4 How. Pr. 41; Benton v. Wick wire, 54 N. Y. 226; Matter of Peugnet, 67 N. Y. 444; McEwen v. Den, Lessee, 24 How. 242, 16 L. Ed. 672; Walker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 245; Goodno v. Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 127; State v. Ingersoll, 17 id. 631; Mann v. McAtee, 37 Cal. 11; Kelsey v. Kendall, 48 Vt. 24; Bay v. Gage, 36 Barb. 447; Bratton v. Guy, 12 S. C. 42; McGeehan v. Burke, 37 La. Ann. 156; State v. Brewster, 3 Am.

45 Huffman v. Hall, 102 Cal. 26, 36Pac. 417; Palmer v. Danville, 166 Ill. 42, 46 N. E. 629; People v. Hiller, 113 Mich. 209, 71 N. W. 630; State v. Reads, 76 Minn. 69, 78 N. W. 883; Bock v. New York, 31 Misc. 54, 64 N. Y. S. 545; Fowler v. Columbia Co., 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 653; Cole Mfg. Co. v. Falls, 92 Tenn. 607, 22 S. W. 856.

46 State v. Burk, 88 Iowa, 661, 56. N. W. 180; Goodno v. Oshkosh, 31

would be a repeal of the provisions therein continued in force from the original act."

The word "hereafter" used in the statute as amended must be construed distributively. As to cases within the statute as originally enacted, it means subsequent to the passage of the original act; as to cases brought within the statute by the amendment, it means subsequent to the time of the amendment.48 It is a general rule, however, that an amended statute is construed, as regards any action had after the amendment was made, as if the statute had been originally enacted in the amended form." "The effect of an amendment of a section of the law is not to sever it from its relation to other sections of the law, but to give it operation in its new form as if it had been so drawn originally, treating the whole act as a harmonious entirety, with its several sections and parts mutually acting upon each other." 50 Where a proviso is added to a section by amendment it will be strictly construed and will be applied only to that section, unless a contrary intent is clear.51

Wis. 127; People v. Supervisors, 67 N. Y. 109; People v. Wilmerding, 136 N. Y. 363, 32 N. E. 1099.

v. Sarpy County, 63 Neb. 813, 89 N. W. 291: Lyon v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 142 N. Y. 298, 37 N. E. 113, 25

47 Moody v. Seaman, 46 Mich. 74, L. R. A. 402; Morgan v. Hedstrom, 8 N. W. 711.

48 Matter of Peugnet, 67 N. Y. 444; Barrons v. People's Gas Light & Coke Co., 75 Fed. 794.

49 Holbrook v. Nichol, 36 Ill. 161; Turney v. Wilton, id. 385; Conrad v. Nall, 24 Mich. 275; Kamerick v. Castleman, 21 Mo. App. 587; Queen v. St. Giles, 3 E. & E. 224; Ashley v. Harrington, 1 D. Chip. 348; Harrell v. Harrell, 8 Fla. 46; Nations v. State, 64 Ark. 467, 43 S. W. 396; Walsh v. State, 142 Ind. 357, 41 N. E. 65, 33 L. R. A. 392; Meer v. Board of Com'rs. 26 Ind. App. 85, 59 N. E. 184; State v. Hirzel, 137 Mo. 435, 37 S. W. 921, 38 S. W. 961; Epperson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 90 Mo. App. 432; Cass County

164 N. Y. 224, 58 N. E. 26; State v. Cincinnati, 52 Ohio St. 419, 40 N. E. 508; United States v. Sapinkow, 90 Fed. 654; Fitzgerald v. Kewis, 164 Mass. 495, 41 N. E. 687; Hatch v. Calhoun Circuit Judge, 127 Mich. 174, 86 N. W. 518; Drew v. Tifft, 79 Minn. 175, 81 N. W. 839, 79 Am. St. Rep. 446, 47 L. R. A. 525; Farrell v. State, 54 N. J. L. 421, 24 Atl. 725; Turner v. Davenport, 61 N. J. Eq 18, 47 Atl. 766; Miller v. McKeon, 15 App. Div. 133, 44 N. Y. S. 371. See Mortimer v. Chambers, 63 Hun, 335, 17 N. Y. S. 874.

50 Farrell v. State, 54 N. J. L. 421, 424, 24 Atl. 725.

51 De Graff v. Went, 164 Ill. 485, 45 N. E. 1075.