AjanuTry,i909rm'}  Drugs  and  Food  Acts  of  1848  and  1906.  23 
"  This  Food  and  Drugs  Act  contains  no  repealing  clause  whatever,  and 
does  not  refer  to  either  the  tea-inspection  Act  or  any  of  the  other  earlier 
statutes  regulating  the  admission  of  other  food  and  drugs,  such  as  the  Act  of 
June  26,  1848,  providing  for  the  examination  at  the  Custom  House  of  drugs 
and  medicines  with  reference  to  their  quality,  purity,  and  fitness  for  medicinal 
purposes." 
"  In  the  absence  of  an  express  repeal  of  an  earlier  statute  by  a  later  one 
covering  the  same  subject,  the  rule  is  well  settled  that,  as  repeals  by  implica- 
tion are  not  favored,  effect  shall  be  given  to  both  statutes,  unless  there  is  a 
positive  repugnancy  between  them,  in  whole  or  in  part,  in  which  case  the 
earlier  statute  is  repealed  by  implication  to  the  extent  of  such  repugnance ; 
or  unless  the  provisions  of  the  later  statutes  cover  the  whole  subject-matter 
of  the  earlier  and  are  plainly  intended  for  a  substitute  therefor,  in  which  case 
there  is  likewise  a  repeal  of  the  earlier  statute  by  implication."  (Wood  vs. 
United  States,  16  Pet.,  342;  Davies  vs.  Fairbairn,  3  How.,  636;  United  States 
v.  Tynen,  11  Wall.,  88;  Henderson's  Tobacco,  11  Wall.,  652;' State  v.  Stoll, 
17  Wall.,  425 ;  Fabbri  v.  Murphy,  95  U.  S.,  191 ;  Ex-Parte  Crow  Dog,  109 
U.  S.,  556;  Chew  Hoeng  v.  United  States,  112  U.  S.,  536.) 
In  Wood  v.  United  States  (16  Pet.,  342,  362),  it  is  said  in  refer- 
ence to  the  question  of  the  repeal  of  an  earlier  statute  by  implication : 
"  It  is  not  sufficient  .  .  .  that  subsequent  laws  cover  some  or  even  all 
of  the  cases  provided  for  by  it;  for  they  may  be  merely  affirmative,  or  cumu- 
lative, or  auxiliary." 
And  in  State  v.  Stoll  (17  Wall.,  425,  431),  the  rule  is  thus  stated: 
"  If,  by  any  reasonable  construction,  the  two  statutes  can  stand  together, 
they  must  so  stand.  If  harmony  is  impossible,  and  only  in  that  event,  the 
former  law  is  repealed  in  part  or  wholly,  as  the  case  may  be." 
Further,  in  Ex-Parte  Crow  Dog  (109,  U.  S.,  556,  570),  it  is  said, 
in  reference  to  the  rule  that  a  later  general  act  is  not  to  be  construed 
as  repealing  a  previous  special  act,  except  by  express  provision  or 
positive  repugnancy: 
"It,  of  course,  follows  from  what  has  been  said  that,  if  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  these  laws  there  should  develop  a  repugnancy  between  any  specific 
provisions  of  the  two  statutes  to  the  extent  of  such  repugnancy  the  provisions 
of  the  Food  and  Drugs  Act  would  prevail,  and  any  conflicting  provisions  of 
the  tea-inspecting  Act  would,  to  such  extent,  be  impliedly  repealed." 
It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  state  that  practically  all  of  the 
features  contemplated  by  the  resolution  under  discussion  are  pro- 
vided for.  Inasmuch  as  the  tentative  bill  read  here  virtually  con- 
templates the  re-enactment  of  the  law  of  1848  with  the  addition  of 
Section  7  of  the  Food  and  Drugs  Act,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention 
