A general act will not be construed to impliedly repeal a previous particular one, although it is broad enough to include the subject covered by the particular one, unless the two are necessarily inconsistent. The rule is generalia specialibus non derogant.90 Nor will a special act repeal pro tanto a prior general one if the two can stand together.91 109 U. S. 556, 27 L. Ed. 1030, 3 Sup. Ct. 396; Snitkin v. United States, 265 Fed. 489; Heike v. United States, 192 Fed. 83 (aff'g 175 Fed. 852), aff'd 227 U. S. 131, 57 L. Ed. 450, 33 Sup. Ct. 226; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 155 Fed. 945, aff'd 208 U. S. 452, 52 L. Ed. 567, 28 Sup. Ct. 313. Alabama. Moore. v. State, 40 Ala. 49. Alaska. United States V. Worcester, 4 Alaska 239. Arkansas. State v. Adams, 142 Ark. 411, 218 S. W. 845; Thompson v. State, 60 Ark. 59, 28 S. W. 794; Chamberlain v. State, 50 Ark. 132, 6 S. W. 524. California. People v. Platt, 67 Cal. 22, 7 Pac. 1. Illinois. Ill. App. 481. Struthers v. People, 116 Massachusetts. Flaherty v. Thomas, 12 Allen 428; Com. v. Wyman, 12 Cush. 237. Michigan. People v. Schoenberg, 161 Mich. 88, 125 N. W. 779; In re Lambrecht, 137 Mich. 450, 100 N. W. 606; Crane v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 496, 69 N. W. 721; People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. 1124, 4 L. R. A. 751; People v. Gustin, 57 Mich. 407, 24 N. W. 156. Minnesota. State v. Rieger, 59 Minn. 151, 60 N. W. 1087. Nebraska. State v. Babcock, 21 Neb. 599, 33 N. W. 247. New York. People v. Dwyer, 215 N. Y. 46, 109 N. E. 103, aff 'g 160 App. Div. 542, 145 N. Y. Supp. 748; People v. Harris, 123 N. Y. 70, 25 N. E. 317; People v. Schultz, 149 App. Div. 844, 134 N. Y. Supp. 293; People v. Myers, 71 Misc. 77, 129 N. Y. Supp. 1099. North Carolina. State v. Broadway, 157 N. C. 598, 72 S. E. 987; State v. Sutton, 100 N. C. 474, 6 S. E. 687. Oklahoma. Crowell v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 148, 117 Pac. 883. Tennessee. Blaufield v. State, 103 Tenn. 593, 53 S. W. 1090. Texas. Cain v. State, 20 Tex. 355; Robertson v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 307, 159 S. W. 713; Parshall v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 177, 138 S. W. 759; Morgan v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 39, 136 S. W. 445; Walker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 345, 32 Am. Rep. 595. A statute changing the punishment for horse stealing was held not to have repealed another code section making it an offense to conceal or aid in concealing a stolen horse. Turner v. State, 40 Ala. 21. This is particularly true where the statute claimed to have been repealed provides that none of its provisions shall be deemed repealed by the pas sage of a subsequent inconsistent statute unless such statute shall explicitly refer thereto and directly repeal it. People v. Dwyer, 215 N. Y. 46, 109 N. E. 103, aff'g 160 App. Div. 542, 145 N. Y. Supp. 748. 90 Rodgers v. United States, 185 U. S. 83, 46 L. Ed. 816, 22 Sup. Ct. 582; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 27 L. Ed. 1030, 3 Sup. Ct. 396; Snitkin v. United States, 265 Fed. 489; State v. Adams, 142 Ark. 411, 218 S. W. 845; Crane v. Reeder, 22 Mich. 322. 91 People v. Singer, 288 Ill. 113, 123 N. E. 327. In the absence of any constitutional or statutory provision on the subject, an amending act may operate as a repeal of the statute amended.92 For example, where a portion of an act is amended "so as to read" in a prescribed manner, the section so amended is entirely repealed, and all matters contained therein which are not incorporated in the amendment are annulled.98 As a rule, however, the amendment only repeals those portions of the original act left out of the amendment, and is regarded as a mere continuation of the original act as to those portions of the latter which remain unchanged.94 So an amendment which substantially re-enacts the statute amended does not operate to repeal it by implication, except in so far as the two statutes are inconsistent.95 In so far as it is reenacted, the original statute is deemed to have been continuously in force, and the amendment does not take away the right to prosecute offenders against the old law nor affect pending prosecutions under it even though there is no saving clause.96 And generally this is true even where the original statute is expressly repealed by the amending one.97 92 People v. Zito, 237 Ill. 434, 86 N. E. 1041, aff'g 140 Ill. App. 611. 93 United States. United States v. Barr, 4 Sawy. 254, Fed. Cas. No. 14,527. California. People v. McNulty, 93 Cal. 427, 26 Pac. 597, 29 Pac. 61, writ of error dismissed 149 U. S. 645, 37 L. Ed. 882, 13 Sup. Ct. 959. Montana. State v. District Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 54 Mont. 332, 169 Pac. 1180. Ohio. In re Allen, 91 Ohio St. 315, 110 N. E. 535; Calkins v. State, 14 Ohio St. 222. Oregon. State v. Smith, 56 Ore. 21, 107 Pac. 980. Texas. See State v. Andrews, 20 Tex. 230. Wisconsin. Goodno v. City of Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 127; State v. Ingersoll, 17 Wis. 631. 94 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 155 Fed. 945, aff'd 208 U. S. 452, 52 L. Ed. 567, 28 Sup. Ct. 313. This is the rule by statute in Illinois. People v. Zito, 237 Ill. 434, 86 N. E. 1041, aff'g 140 Ill. App. 611. 95 Sage v. State, 127 Ind. 15, 26 N. E. 667; State v. Miller, 58 Ind. 399; Alexander v. State, 9 Ind. 337; People v. Schoenberg, 161 Mich. 88, 125 N. W. 779; Crane v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 496, 69 N. W. 721. 96 United States. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 155 Fed. 945, aff'd 208 U. S. 452, 52 L. Ed. 567, 28 Sup. Ct. 313. Indiana. Sage v. State, 127 Ind. 15, 26 N. E. 667; State v. Miller, 58 Ind. 399. Louisiana. State v. Brewer, 22 La. Michigan. People v. Schoenberg, 161 Mich. 88, 125 N. W. 779; Crane v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 496, 69 N. W. 721. Ohio. In re Allen, 91 Ohio St. 315, 110 N. E. 535. 97 United States. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 155 Fed. 945, The repeal of a provision making an act an offense necessarily repeals a provision fixing a penalty for doing such act, though the latter is not in terms repealed.98 A statute imposing a different punishment for the same offense as is punished by a former statute impliedly repeals the former statute, at least in so far as the punishment is concerned.99 But an amendment which merely increases the limit of possible punishment fixed by the amended statute, without in any way affecting the elements of the offense, does not repeal the amended statute.1 And the same is true of an amendment which merely provides for the distribution of the penalty in a manner different from that directed by the original act.2 Where a statute is repealed by implication by the enactment of a later inconsistent one, and both laws are subsequently included in a revision or codification, it will be presumed that the repeal was overlooked by the codifiers and the legislature, and the earlier statute will remain repealed by the later.3 An unconstitutional statute cannot operate to repeal a valid one by implication. And if an amending statute is unconstitutional, the amended statute remains intact and valid as it was.5 § 79. Of the common law. repeals.of the common law any aff'd 208 U. S. 452, 52 L. Ed. 567, 28 Sup. Ct. 313. Louisiana. State v. Brewer, 22 La. Ann. 273. Massachusetts. See Wright v. Oak ley, 5 Metc. 400. Nebraska. State v. Wish, 15 Neb. 448, 19 N. W. 686. North Carolina. State v. Sutton, 100 N. C. 474, 6 S. E. 687. Ohio. In re Allen, 91 Ohio St. 315, 110 N. E. 535. Wisconsin. Glentz v. State, 38 Wis. 549; State v. Gumber, 37 Wis. 298. 98 State v. Gaunt, 13 Ore. 115, 9 Pac. 55. 99 United States. United States v. Puhac, 268 Fed. 392; United States v. Windham, 264 Fed. 376. California. People v. Tisdale, 57 Cal. 104. The law does not favor implied more than it does implied repeals Dakota. People v. Sponsler, 1 Dak. 289, 46 N. W. 459. Illinois. Wilson v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 64 Ill. 542, 16 Am. Rep. 565. Louisiana. State v. Guillory, 127 La. 951, 54 So. 297. Massachusetts. Com. V. McDonough, 13 Allen 581. 1 State v. Broadway, 157 N. C. 598, 72 S. E. 987. 2 State v. Wilbor, 1 R. I. 199, 36 Am. Dec. 245. 3 Robertson v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 307, 159 S. W. 713. 4 Ex parte Sohncke, 148 Cal. 262, 82 Pac. 956, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 813, 113 Am. St. Rep. 236, 7 Ann. Cas. 475; Parshall v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 177, 138 S. W. 759, and cases cited. 5 State v. Savage, 96 Ore. 53, 184 Pac. 567, 189 Pac. 427. of the statute law, and they will not be adjudged to occur except where they are inevitable, or where it is obvious that the legislature intended that result. As a general rule, there is no repeal if there is no repugnancy between the common law and the statute." And statutes in derogation of the common law will be construed strictly, and as not operating to repeal it beyond their words or the clear 6 Delaware. State v. Donovan, 5 Boyce 40, 90 Atl. 220. Illinois. Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 421, 73 N. E. 770, aff'g 114 Ill. App. 75. Maryland. Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 Atl. 700. Massachusetts. Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 496, 20 Am. Dec. 491. Missouri. State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132. Rhode Island. State v. Shapiro, 29 R. I. 133, 69 Atl. 340. That the law does not favor implied repeals of statutes see. § 78, supra. 7 Delaware. State v. Donovan, 5 Boyce 40, 90 Atl. 220. Illinois. Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 421, 73 N. E. 770, aff'g 114 Ill. App. 75. Kentucky. Com. v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 154 Ky. 787, 159 S. W. 570. Minnesota. State v. Crummey, 17 Minn. 72; State v. Pulle, 12 Minn. 164. Missouri. State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132. New Jersey. State v. Ellis, 33 N. J. L. 102, 97 Am. Dec. 707. New Mexico. Ex parte De Vore, 18 N. M. 246, 136 Pac. 47. Where the statute does not cover the whole subject of the offense at common law, and there is no express repeal, and the statute and the common law differ, the common law is repealed only when the statute is couched in exclusive words or in negative terms, or the matter of the statute is so clearly repugnant that it necessarily implies a negative. State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132; State v. Norton, 23 N. J. L. 33. A statute defining and punishing bribery of judicial officers only does not abrogate or repeal the common law as to bribery of other officers. State v. Ellis, 33 N. J. L. 102, 97 Am. Dec. 707. A statute declaring certain acts to be nuisances repeals the common law only in so far as it takes its place. As to acts specified in the statute there can be no common-law nuisance, but as to other acts the common law is not repealed. Territory v. Ye Wan, 2 Mont. 478. In the following cases the common law as to conspiracy was held not to have been repealed by statutes making certain conspiracies crimes: Arkansas. Powell v. State, 133 Ark. 477, 203 S. W. 25. Illinois. Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 421, 73 N. E. 770, aff'g 114 Ill. App. 75. Maryland. State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. 317, 9 Am. Dec. 534. Missouri. State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132. New Jersey. State v. Bienstock, 78 N. J. L. 256, 73 Atl. 530; State v. Norton, 33 N. J. L. 33. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Richardson, 229 Pa. 609, 79 Atl. 222, aff'g 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 337; Com. v. McHale, 97 Pa. St. 397, 39 Am. Rep. 808. South Carolina. State v. Ameker, 73 S. C. 338, 53 S. E. 484. repugnancy of their provisions. But the common law is repealed if there is an irreconcilable repugnancy between it and a statute, or if the legislature has undertaken to revise and cover the whole subject-matter.10 When a statute creates a new offense, and prescribes a particular penalty and mode of enforcing it, the statute, of course, must be followed; 11 but if the offense was before punishable at common law, the common-law remedy still remains, though the statute may prescribe a new remedy, unless there are negative words in the statute excluding all other remedies.12 And when an 8 State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132. 9 Com. v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 154 Ky. 787, 159 S. W. 570; State v. Pulle, 12 Minn. 164. A statute defining incest to be sexual intercourse between persons nearer of kin to each other than second cousins abrogates the common law on the subject if by the latter.sexual intercourse between persons not related by blood within the degrees named by the statute was incest. State v. Bielman, 86 Wash. 460, 150 Pac. 1194. See also the other cases cited in the preceding notes. Delaware. State v. Donovan, 5 Boyce 40, 90 Atl. 220. Iowa. Estes v. Carter, 10 Iowa 400. Kentucky. Com. v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 154 Ky. 787, 159 S. W. 570. Massachusetts. Com. v. Dennis, 105 Mass. 162; Com. v. Marshall, 11 Pick. 350, 22 Am. Dec. 377; Com. v. Cooley, 10 Pick. 37. Minnesota. State v. Pulle, 12 Minn. 164. Missouri. State v. Boogher, 71 Mo. 631; State v. Slaughter, 70 Mo. 484; State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132. This is particularly true where not only the subject-matter of the common-law offense is included but the common-law offense is defined and enacted by the statute prescribing the penalty therefor. State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132. In Com. v. Dennis, 105 Mass. 162, the prosecution was for attempt to commit suicide, which was a misdemeanor at common law. It appeared that the Massachusetts legislature had undertaken to cover the subject of attempts by statute, the degree of punishment being measured by the character of the offense attempted, and the punishment attached to it. All offenses punishable by death, impris onment, and fine were included, and no others. It was held that the common law as to attempts to commit suicide was repealed, and that such attempts were no longer indictable, since suicide could never be punished in either of the ways specified. In Michigan the whole common law of crimes is regarded as repealed because of an evident purpose of the statutes to cover the entire field of the criminal law. In re Lamphere, 61 Mich. 105, 27 N. W. 882. 11 Wetmore v. Tracy, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 250, 28 Am. Dec. 525. 12 People v. Crowley, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 412; Wetmore v. Tracy, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 250, 28 Am. Dec. 525. See also Com. v. Howes, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 231. If a statute fixing a penalty for an |