propose to determine whether, the right to prosecute for any prior offense committed before the going into effect of the Hepburn law was lost by reason of the adoption of that law.

We must read the Hepburn law in the light of § 13 of the Revised Statutes, which provides as follows:

"SEC. 13. The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability."

This provision but embodies §4 of the act approved February 25, 1871, c. 71, 16 Stat. 431, which was entitled "An Act prescribing the Form of the enacting and resolving Clauses of Acts and Resolutions of Congress, and rules for the construction thereof." As the section of the Revised Statutes in question has only the force of a statute, its provisions cannot justify a disregard of the will of Congress as manifested either expressly or by necessary implication in a subsequent enactment. But while this is true the provisions of § 13 are to be treated as if incorporated in and as a part of subsequent enactments, and therefore under the general principles of construction requiring, if possible, that effect be given to all the parts of a law the section must be enforced unless either by express declaration or necessary implication, arising from the terms of the law, as a whole, it results that the legislative mind will be set at naught by giving effect to the provisions of § 13. For the sake of brevity we do not stop to refer to the many cases from state courts of last resort dealing with the operation of general state statutes like unto § 13, Rev. Stat., because we think the views just stated are obvious and their correctness is established by a prior decision of this court concerning that section. United States v. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398.

The Hepburn law is entitled "An Act to amend an Act entitled 'An Act to regulate commerce,' approved FebruVOL. CC III-30

ary fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all Acts amendatory thereof and to enlarge the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission." The law is comprehensive. İt undoubtedly, as we have said, in the second section, amends and reënacts the Elkins act and enlarges in important particulars the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and changes the procedure in various ways essential to the conduct of controversies before the commission. Besides, the act in some respects modifies the means of enforcing the orders of the commission in the courts of the United States, the right of appeal, the judgment as to costs, attorneys' fees, etc. The crucial portion of the act, for the purposes of the present inquiry, is § 10, which provides: "That all laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed, but the amendments herein provided for shall not affect causes now pending in the courts of the United States, but such causes shall be prosecuted to a conclusion in the manner heretofore provided by law."

Clearly, the mere repeal of conflicting laws is in no way repugnant to the provisions of § 13 of the Revised Statutes, and, therefore, standing alone, leaves no room for contending that the enactment of the Hepburn law destroyed the effect of § 13. The difficulty of construction, if any, arises from the words following the general repealing clause: "but the amendments herein provided for shall not affect causes now pending in the courts of the United States, but such causes shall be prosecuted to conclusion in the manner heretofore provided by law." These words, we think, do not, expressly or by fair implication, conflict with the general rule established by § 13, Rev. Stat., since by their very terms they are concerned with the application to proceedings pending in the courts of the United States of the new methods of procedure created by the Hepburn law. Any other construction would necessitate expunging the words "shall be prosecuted to a conclusion in the manner heretofore provided by law." This follows, because if it were to be held that the intent and object of the

lawmaker in dealing with cases "pending in the courts of the United States," was solely to depart as to all but such pending cases from the general rule of Rev. Stat. § 13, then the provision as to future proceedings would be unnecessary, because the old and unrepealed as well as the newly enacted remedies would be applicable, as far as pertinent, to such pending causes. The provision commanding that the new remedies should not be applicable to causes then pending in the courts of the United States gives significance to the whole clause and serves to make clear the fact that the legislative mind was concerned with the confusion and uncertainty which might be begotten from applying the new remedies to causes then pending in the courts, and demonstrates therefore that this subject, and this subject alone, was the matter with which the provision in question was intended to deal.. In other words, when the object contemplated by the provision is accurately fixed the subject is freed from difficulty, and not only the letter but the spirit of the provision becomes clear; that is to say, it but manifests the purpose of Congress to leave cases pending in the courts to be prosecuted under the prior remedies, thus causing the new remedies created to be applicable to all controversies not at the time of the passage of the act pending in the courts. And all the arguments relied upon to sustain the theory that the power to prosecute for past offenses not then pending in the courts was abrogated by the Hepburn law rest in substance upon the disregard of the true significance of the provision of § 10. Thus the argument that by the application of the elementary rule by which the inclusion of one must be considered as the exclusion of the other, it follows that the power to further prosecute all but cases then pending in the courts was destroyed by the Hepburn law, because pending causes are enumerated in § 10, and are hence not saved by Rev. Stat. § 13, simply assumes that the provision of. § 10 was intended to save the right to further prosecute the cases then pending in the courts, and disregards the fact that the provision as to pending causes was solely addressed to the remedies to

be applied in the future carrying on of such cases. Again, the contention that unless the provision as to pending causes in 10 be construed as relating to the further right to prosecute such cases, it becomes meaningless, but overlooks the fact that the purpose of the provision was, by express enactment, to prevent the application of the new remedies to the causes then pending in the courts of the United States, a result which would not necessarily have followed without the direction in question.

The purpose of Congress in enacting § 10 is aptly illustrated by previous legislation concerning the reënactment of the Interstate Conimerce Law, and may well have been deemed to be advisable in consequence of the decision of this court in Missouri Pacific Railway v. United States, 189 U. S. 274. The construction which we have given § 10, resulting from its plain language, is fortified by a consideration of the context of the Hepburn law. Thus conceding for the sake of argument that the word "pending cases," as used in § 10, embraces criminal prosecutions, it clearly also relates to civil controversies. Now, § 16 of the prior act to regulate commerce, as amended and reënacted by § 5 of the Hepburn law, prescribes a limitation of two years "from the time the cause of action accrues' as to "all complaints for the recovery of damages" before the commission, and establishes a limitation of one year for the filing of a petition in the Circuit Court for the enforcement of an order of the commission for the payment of money. But the section contains a proviso saving the right to present claims accrued prior to the passage of the act, provided the petition be filed within one year. If it were true that § 10 abrogated, as asserted, the right to prosecute all claims not pending in the courts at the time of the passage of the Hepburn law, it would follow that that law destroyed the very rights which it specifically provides should be saved if prosecuted within a year. Moreover, as the clause of § 10 which is relied upon in terms embraces only cases pending in the courts of the United States, it would follow, if the contention here made were true, that the

Hepburn law, while saving pending cases in the courts, yet destroyed all claims pending at the time of the passage of that act before the commission. As no reason is suggested why, if the purpose of § 10 was to save pending causes, that section should have destroyed the right to further prosecute all causes pending before the commission, it would seem that the inclusion in § 10, only of causes pending in courts of the United States, could only have been the result of a purpose on the part of Congress not to distinguish without reason between pending causes by saving one class and destroying the other, but was solely based on the desire of Congress not to interfere with proceedings then pending in the courts, but to leave such proceedings to be carried to a finality, in accordance with the remedies existing at the time of their initiation. There are various other provisions of the Hepburn law which we think additionally irresistibly demonstrate the correctness of the construction which we affix to § 10, but we do not, for the sake of brevity, refer to them, as we think the reasoning hitherto stated adequately shows the unsoundness of the proposition that that section manifests in any respect the intention of Congress to depart from the general principle expressed in Rev. Stat. § 13. We say, however, that the view we have taken has in various forms of statement been upheld by a line of decisions in the lower Federal courts. United States v. Standard Oil Company, 148 Fed. Rep. 719; United States v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Railway Company et al., 151 Fed. Rep. 84; United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railway Company, 152 Fed. Rep. 269; United States v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, 153 Fed. Rep. 630. In citing the cases in question we do not wish to be considered as implying that we express any opinion as to the doctrines which they may announce upon other subjects than the one now before us. We say this, because it may be that some of the other subjects with which some of the cited cases deal may hereafter come before us for decision, and therefore we prefer not prematurely, even by indirection, to leave room