24 BOARD OP AGRICULTURE. [Jan., 



the citizen; it merely gives to the Board of Agriculture a discretionary 

 power -when, in their judgment, the public good shall require it, to kill 

 not only animals that are actually infected with, but also those which 

 have been exposed to, and are liable to communicate to other animals 

 any contagious disease. 



Is there anything in this act to relieve the citizen from the obligation 

 imposed upon him, for the public good, by the 3d section of chapter V ? 



Has the legislature, in passing a general law giving to its Board of 

 Agriculture a discretionary power to kill certain animals, annulled its 

 positive edict that all animals infected with a particular disease shall be 

 instantly slaughtered ? 



I think not. These statutes, to my mind, are not only not inconsist- 

 ent, but in strict harmony, each working by its own methods to accom- 

 plish its particular object. The purpose sought to be eflfccted by its two 

 statutes are different, that of the one being the extirpation of a particu- 

 lar disease at all hazards, and that of the other the control, treatment, 

 cure, and extirpation of contagious diseases in general, under the discre- 

 tion and supervision of the Board of Agriculture. The methods adopted 

 to carry into effect the intention of the legislature are entirely dissimi- 

 lar. The former statute, applying only to horses infected with the 

 glanders, enforces its provisions by the aid of the criminal law ; the 

 latter ojjcrating upon all animals infected with or suspected of contagion, 

 invests one of the branches of the civil service of the state with dis- 

 cretionary powers as to its administration. 



The state, in effect, by the enactment of chapter V, declared the act 

 of keeping a horse known to be infected with the glanders to be a 

 crime; and I fail to find in any subsequent act any intention on the part 

 of the legislature to annul or modify the force of that declaration. 



I will further remark, that not only were these statutes enacted by the 

 same legislature, but they emanated from the same committee and were 

 .under consideration at the same time. 



No case can be found in which it has been held that a statute of a 

 criminal nature was repealed by implication by a subsequent statute of 

 a civil nature, merely because both might apply to the same subject 

 matter. The legislature may adopt as many methods as it sees fit to 

 remedy a given evil, and so long as they are not inconsistent and do not 

 conflict with each other, all will be upheld and allowed to have a con- 

 current operation. 



In conclusion, I rejieat that, in my judgment, the claim that cliapter 



LXXIII repeals, by implication, section 2 of chapter V is unsound, 



untenable, and wholly without foundation in law. 



Respectfully yours, 



E. H. Hyde, Jr. 



I concur in thia opinion, 



CuAULES B. Andrews. 



