from their original enactment.22 Where a statute repeals all former laws within its purview, the intention is obvious and is readily recognized to sweep away all existing laws upon the subjects with which the repealing act deals." The purview is the enacting part of a statute, in contradistinction to the preamble; and a repeal of all acts within the purview of the repealing statute should be understood as including all acts or parts of acts in relation to all cases which are provided for by the repealing act, and no more." But a statute may have the effect to repeal a former statute or some provision of it though it be silent on the subject of repeal. In such cases repeal is inferred from necessity, if there be such conflict that the old and new statutes cannot stand together.25 Repugnancy in principle merely, between two acts, forms no reason why both may not stand. Nor is one statute repealed by the repugnant spirit of another;" nor for conflict with an unconstitutional provision.28 It has been held that one private act will not repeal another by implication.29 It has been held that a statute may become repealed by adverse custom or long non-user. 30 22 Ely v. Holton, 15 N. Y. 595; Goodno v. Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 127; ante, 237, 238. The court says in the last case cited: "The original section, as an independent and distinct statutory enactment, ceased to have any existence the very moment the amendatory act was passed and went into effect, and whatever provisions of it remained as law were such solely by virtue of being again enacted in the amendment. The original section, as a separate statute, was as effectually repealed and obliterated from the statute book as if the repeal had been made in direct and express words and none of its provisions had been re-enacted." 23 Ogden v. Witherspoon, 2 Hay. As wood, 404; Harrington v. Rochester, 10 Wend. 547. 24 Payne v. Conner, 3 Bibb, 180; Commonwealth v. Watts, 84 Ky. 537, 2S. W. 123; Patterson v. Caldwell, 1 Met. (Ky.) 489; Grigsby v. Barr, 14 Bush, 330. See Gorham v. Luckett, 6 B. Mon. 146. 25 See next section. 26 Smith, Ex parte, 40 Cal. 419. 27 State v. Macon Co. Ct., 41 Mo. 453, 454. See Cass v. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 612; State v. Cincinnati, 19 Ohio. 197. 28 Ante, § 245. 29 Trustees v. Laird, 4 De G., M. & G. 732. See Schneider v. Staples, 66 Wis. 167, 28 N. W. 145. 30 Hill v. Smith, Morris, 70; O'Hanlon v. Myers, 10 Rich. L. 128; Wat repeal can only proceed from the legislature, the obsoleteness of the non-used statute must be in some way recognized in subsequent legislation. Popular disregard of a statute, or custom opposed to it, will not repeal it.31 A statute does not cease on removal of some of the evils it was intended to provide against. Long practice may clear away ambiguities, and have a potent influence in the interpretation of a statute. So a long disuse of a statute of a penal nature, implying that it has not been kept in popular remembrance, or an intention of the government not to enforce it, may incline a court to soften its rigors within the limits of judicial discretion. Parts of a statute may become useless and incapable of any operation on account of the repeal or radical change of other and fundamental parts. They should be deemed repealed, because lifeless fragments.34 § 247 (138). Repeals by implication - General rulesSame not favored. Such repeals are recognized as intended by the legislature, and its intention to repeal is ascertained as the legislative intent is ascertained in other respects, when not expressly declared, by construction."5 An implied repeal results from some enactment the terms and necessary operation of which cannot be harmonized with the terms and necessary effect of an earlier act. In such case the later law prevails as the last expression of the legislative will; therefore, the former law is constructively repealed, since it cannot be supposed that the law-making son v. Blaylock, 2 Mills (S. C.), 351; Canady v. George, 6 Rich. Eq. 103. 31 Kitchen v. Smith, 101 Pa. St. 452; Homer v. Commonwealth, 106 id. 221, 51 Am. Rep. 521; James v. Commonwealth, 12 S. & R. 220; White v. Boot, 2 T. R. 274; Leigh v. Kent, 3 id. 362; Tyson v. Thomas, McC. & Y. 127; Rex v. Wells, 4 Dowl. 562; The India, 33 L. J. Rep. P. M. & A. 193; S. C., Br. & L. 221; Hebbert v. Purchas, L. R. 3 P. C. 650; Costello v. Palmer, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 210; State v. Meek, 26 32 Mayor, etc. v. Dearmon, 2 Sneed, 104. 33 Leigh v. Kent, 3 T. R. 362. See post, § 473. 34 Stephens v. Ballou, 27 Kan. 594; Steamboat Co. v. Collector, 18 Wall. 478, 490, 21 L. Ed. 769. 35 State v. McCurdy, 62 Minn. 509, 64 N. W. 1133; Thorpe v. Schooling, 7 Nev. 15. power intends to enact or continue in force laws which are contradictions. The repugnancy being ascertained, the later act or provision in date or position has full force, and displaces by repeal whatever in the precedent law is inconsistent with it.36 36 Kinney v. Mallory, 3 Ala. 626; Barker v. Bell, 46 Ala. 216; Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203; Riggs v. Brewer, 64 Ala. 282; Watson v. Kent, 78 Ala. 602; Ex parte Thomas, 113 Ala. 1, 21 So. 369; State v. Watts, 23 Ark. 304; Ex parte Osborn, 24 Ark. 479; Coats v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149; People v. Griffen, 20 Cal. 677; People v. San Francisco, etc. R. R. Co., 28 Cal. 254; People v. Burt, 43 Cal. 560; Pennie v. Reis, 80 Cal. 266, 22 Pac. 176; Davis v. Whidden, 117 Cal. 618, 49 Pac. 766; Hirschburg v. People, 6 Colo. 145; Eaton v. People, 30 Colo. 345, 70 Pac. 426; People v. Wright, 30 Colo. 439, 71 Pac. 365; Husbands v. Talley, 3 Penn. (Del.) 88, 47 Atl. 1009; Harrison v. Walker, 1 Ga. 32; Elrod v. Gilliland, 27 Ga. 467; Western & A. R. R. Co. v. Atlanta, 113 Ga. 537, 38 S. E. 996, 54 L. R. A. 294; Sullivan v. People, 15 Ill. 233; Fowler v. Perkins, 77 Ill. 271; Pavey v. Utter, 132 Ill. 489, 24 N. E. 77; Commissioners of Highways v. Deboe, 43 Ill. App. 25; Spring Valley v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 71 Ill. App. 432; Lewis v. Cook County, 72 Ill. App. 151; Hamlyn v. Nesbit, 37 Ind. 284; Hyland v. Brazil Block Coal Co., 128 Ind. 335, 26 N. E. 672; Central Iowa R. R. Co. v. Board of Sup'rs, 67 Iowa, 199, 25 N. W. 128; Straight v. Crawford, 73 Iowa, 676, 35 N. W. 920; Ely v. Thompson, 3 A. K. Marsh. 70; Maddox v. Graham, 2 Met. (Ky.) 56, 76; Saul v. His Creditors, 5 Martin (N. S.), 569, 16 Am. Dec. 212; Gayle's Heirs v. Williams, 7 La. 162; Collins v. Chase, 71 Me. 434; Dugan v. Gittings, 3 Gill. 138; Appeal Tax Court v. Western Md. R. R. Co., 50 Md. 275; State v. Yewell, 63 Md. 120; New London. etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 102 Mass. 389; Chapoton v. Detroit, 38 Mich. 636; Connors v. Carp River Iron Co., 54 Mich. 168, 19 N. W. 938; Gates v. Shugrue, 35 Minn. 392, 29 N. W. 57; Morrison v. Rice, 35 Minn. 436, 29 N. W. 168; Planters' Bank v. State, 6 S. & M. 628; Miller v. State, 33 Miss. 356, 69 Am. Dec. 351; McAfee v. Southern R. R. Co., 36 Miss. 669; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268; House v. State, 41 Miss. 737; Hearn v. Brogan, 64 Miss. 334, 1 So. 246; State v. Wish, 15 Neb. 448, 19 N. W. 686; Omaha Real Est. & T. Co. v. Kragscow, 47 Neb. 592, 66 N. W. 658; Eaton v. Burke, 66 N. H. 306, 22 Atl. 452; Buckallew v. Ackerman, 8 N. J. L 48; Poulson v. Union Nat. Bank, 40 N. J. L. 563; Mayor, etc. v. Jersey City, etc. R. R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 360; Public School Trustees v. Trenton, 30 N. J. Eq. 667; Baca v. Bernalillo County Com'rs, 10 N. M. 438; Pierce v. Delamater, 1 N. Y. 17; People v. Palmer, 52 N. Y. 83; Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. 613; Lyddy v. Long Island City, 104 N. Y. 218, 10 N. E. 155; Matter of Washington Subsequent legislation repeals previous inconsistent legislation whether it expressly declares such repeal or not. In the nature of things it would be so, not only on the theory of intention, but because contradictions cannot stand to St. etc. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 442, 22 N. E. 356; People v. Canvassers, 77 Hun, 372, 28 N. Y. S. 871; Bowen v. Lease, 5 Hill, 221; Farley v. De Waters, 2 Daly, 192; Church v. Rhodes, 6 How. Pr. 281; State v. Monger, 111 N. C. 675, 16 S. E. 229; Ruffner v. Hamilton County, 1 Disney, 39; State v. Halliday, 63 Ohio St. 165, 57 N. E. 1097; Bird v. Wasco County, 3 Ore. 284; Grant County v. Sels, 5 Ore. 243; Hurst v. Hawn. 5 Ore. 275; Strickland v. Geide, 31 Ore. 373, 49 Pac. 982; Reed v. Dunbar, 41 Ore. 509, 69 Pac. 451; Egypt Street, 2 Grant's Cas. 455; Southwark Bank v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa. St. 446; Prown's Estate, 152 Pa. St. 401, 25 Atl. 630; Speer v. Boggs, 204 Pa. St. 504; State v. Wilbor, 1 R. I. 199; Busby v. Riley, 6 S. D. 401, 61 N. W. 164; Furman v. Nichol, 3 Cold. 432; Browning v. Jones, 4 Humph. 69; Hockaday v. Wi'son, 1 Head, 113; Wilcox v. State, 3 Heisk. 110; White v. Nashville, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Heisk. 518; Home Ins. Co. v. Taxing District, 4 Lea, 644; Brown v. Chancellor, 61 Tex. 437; Fayette County v. Faires, 44 Tex. 514; Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 10 L. Ed. 987; Beals v. Hale, 4 How. 37, 11 L. Ed. 865; United States v. Sixty-seven Packages, 17 How. 85, 15 L. Ed. 54; United States v. Walker, 23 How. 299, 16 L. Ed. 382; McCool v. Smith, 1 Black, 459, 17 L. Ed. 218; Galena v. Amy, 5 Wall. 705, 18 L. Ed. 560; Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 49, 19 L. Ed. 370; Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. 356, 20 L. Ed. 167; Supervisors v. Lackawana I. & C. Co., 93 U. S. 619, 23 L. Ed. 989; Movius v. Arthur, 95 U. S. 144, 24 L. Ed. 420; Arthur v. Homer, 96 U. S. 137, 24 L. Ed. 811; Clay County v. Society for Savings, 104 U. S. 579, 26 L. Ed. 856; Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596, 1 S. C. Rep. 434, 27 L. Ed. 251; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 3 S. C. Rep. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030; District of Columbia v. Hutton, 143 U. S. 18, 12 S. C. Rep. 369, 36 L. Ed. €0; United States v. One Hundred Barrels of Spirits, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 305, Fed. Cas. No. 15,948; Johnson v. Byrd, Hempst. 434, Fed. Cas No. 7376; Woods v. Jackson Co., 1 Holmes, 379, Fed. Cas. No. 17,983; Forqueran v. Donnally, 7 W. Va. 114; Smith v. Hickman, Cooke, 330; Rex v. Middlesex, 1 Dow. P. C. 117; O'Flaherty v. Macdowell, 6 H. L. Cas. 142; Sharp v. Warren, 6 Price, 131; Dobbs v. Grand Junction W. W., L. R. 9 Q. B. D. 158. The following cases illustrate the same point. In each case there was held to be a repeal by implication, but the question was of minor importance in the case or received but little consideration: Zaner v. State, 90 Ala. 651, 8 So. 698; White v. Burgin, 113 Ala. 170, 21 So. 832; Hubman v. State, 61 Ark. 482, 33 S. W. 843; Hogane v. Hogane, 57 Ark. 508, 22 S. W. 167; People v. Superior Ct., 100 Cal. 105, 34 Pac. 492; Davis v. Post, 125 Cal. 210, 57 Pac. gether. The intention to repeal, however, will not be presumed, nor the effect of repeal admitted, unless the inconsistency is unavoidable, and only to the extent of the repug nance.38 901; Cook County v. Chicago, 167 Ill. 109, 47 N. E. 210; People v. Yancey, 167 Ill. 255, 47 N. E. 521: In Matter of Christian Busse, 80 Ill. App. 261; Garrigus v. Commissioners, 157 Ind. 103, 60 N. E. 948; Flat Rock v. Rust, 18 Ind. App. 282, 47 N. E. 934; Commonwealth v. Godshaw, 92 Ky. 435, 17 S. W. 737; O'Connor V. Commissioners, 61 Minn. 370, 63 N. W. 1025; Merriman v. Great Northern Express Co., 63 Minn. 543, 65 N. W. 1080; Gibbs v. Southern, 116 Mo. 204, 22 S. W. 713; Kennedy v. Savage, 18 Mont, 119, 44 Pac. 400; Davis v. Davis, 27 Neb. 859, 44 N. W. 40; Van Steen v. Beatrice, 36 Neb. 421, 54 N. W. 677; Schmidt v. Lewis, 63 N. J. Eq. 565, 52 Atl. 707; Tomlin v. Hildreth, 65 N. J. L. 438, 47 Atl. 649; Levy v. Ostega, 9 N. M. 391, 54 Pac. 344; Howard v. Clatsop County. 41 Ore. 149, 68 Pac. 425; Advance Thresher Co. v. Esteb, 41 Ore. 469, 69 Pac. 447; Board of Education v. Haralson, 2 Okl. 170, 37 Pac. 1063; Philadelphia v. Kates, 150 Pa. St. 30, 24 Atl. 673; Smith v. Wehrly, 157 Pa. St. 407, 27 Atl. 700; Commonwealth v. Railway Co., 162 Pa. St. 614, 29 Atl. 696; Commonwealth v. Weir, 165 Pa. St. 284, 30 Atl. 835; Com monwealth v. Schneipp. 166 Pa. St. 401, 31 Atl. 118; Chester v. Pennell, 169 Pa. St. 300, 32 Atl. 408; Hays v. Cumberland County, 186 Pa. St. 109, 40 Atl. 282; Philadelphia & R. C. & I. Co.'s Petition, 200 Pa. St. 52, 49 Atl. 797; Frederick Street, 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 283; Erhard v. Clear field Coal Co., 5 Pa. Dist. Ct. 611; Clark v. Koplin, 6 Pa. Supr. Ct. 462; Uhler v. Moses, 10 Pa. Supr. Ct. 194; Memphis v. Memphis Sav. Bank, 99 Tenn. 104, 42 S. W. 16; McCornick v. Thatcher, 8 Utah, 294, 30 Pac. 91: Taylor v. Robertson, 16 Utah, 390, 52 Pac. 1; Dahl v. Tibba's, 5 Wash. 259, 31 Pac. 868; Mansfield v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Wash. 665, 32 Pac. 789, 999; State v. Rusk, 15 Wash. 403, 46 Pac. 387; State v. Cheetham, 17 Wash. 483, 49 Pac. 1072; Yarwood v. Happy, 18 Wash. 246, 51 Pac. 461; Dennis v. Moses, 18 Wash. 537, 52 Pac. 333, 40 L. R. A. 302: Seattle v. Clark, 28 Wash. 717, 69 Pac. 407; Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U. S. 459, 12 S. C. Rep. 207, 35 L. Ed. 1080; Henrietta Min. & M. Co. v. Gardner. 173 U. S. 123, 19 S. C. Rep. 327, 43 L. Ed. 637; Minnehaha County v. Champion, 5 Dak. 433, 41 N. W. 754. 37 Re Hickory Tree Road, 43 Pa. St. 139, 142; People v. Burt, 43 Cal. 560; Morrall v. Sutton, 11 Phil. 533; Commercial Bank of Natchez v. Chambers, 8 Sm. & M. 9; Constantine v. Constantine, 6 Ves. 100; Brown v. Great W. Ry. Co., 9 Q. B. D. 753; Co. Lit. 112. The adoption of a treaty with the stipulations of which the provisions of a state law are inconsistent is equivalent to the repeal of such law. Denn ex demise Fisher v. Harnden, 1 Paine, 55, Fed. Cas. No. 4819. The repeal of an act effects also a repeal of an act amendatory of the act repealed. Hemstrat v. Wassum, 49 Cal. 273. 38 Williams v. People, 132 Ill. 574, |