Special legislation is not necessarily re pealed by subsequent general legislation with out words of repeal ; McKenna v. Edmund stone, 91 N. Y. 231; Com. v. Macferron, 152 Pa. 244, 25 Atl. 556, 19 L. R. A. 568; Cook County v. Gilbert, 146 I11. 268, 33 N. E. 761; L. R. 10 A. C. 68. To have that effect there must be express reference or necessary impli cation; 2 J. & H. 53 ; 10 App. Cas. 68 ; there may be a repeal without express words; Hudson v. Ely, 36 Okl. 576, 129 Pac. 11.
Where a statute amends a former statute "so as to read as follows" and restates it at length the prior act is not repealed and re enacted but is continued ; Cora. v. Kenneson, 143 Mass. 418, 9 N. E. 761; inconsistent pro viSions in the former, omitted in the later, act are repealed ; In re Estate of Prime, 136 N. Y. 347, 32 N. E. 1091, 18 L. R. A. 713.
Where there is a general revision of stat utes, clearly intended to be complete, it re peals prior legislation, though not repugnant and though the revision contains no words of repeal ; Com. v. Mason; 82 Ky. 256; Stead v. Curtis, 191 Fed. 529, 112 C. C. A. 463; Pin gree v. Snell, 42 Me. 53 ; Wakefield v. Phelps, 37 N. H. 295 ; Illinois & Mich. Canal v. Chi cago, 14 Ill. 334; but only where the intent to repeal plainly appears ; Clark v. Powell, 62 Vt. 442, 20 Atl. 597.
A new Constitution repeals all acts incon sistent therewith; Mannie v. Hatfield, 22 S. D. 475, 118 N. W. 817.
A statute purporting to cover an entire subject repeals all former statutes on the same subject, either with or without a re pealing clause and notwithstanding...it may omit material provisions of the earlier stat utes ; Terrell v. State, 86 Tenn. 523, 8 S. W. 212 ; Millay v. White, 86 Ky. 170, 5 S. W. 429; Little v. Cogswell, 20 Or. 345, 25 Pac. 727.
A statute will not repeal a prior statute merely because it repeals some of its pro visions and omits others, or adds new provi sions ; the later act operates as a repeal only when it plainly appears that it was intended is a substitute for the first act ; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. v. U. S., 127 U. S. 406, 8 Sup. Ct. 1194, 32 L. Ed. 180; and a previous statute will be held to be modified by a subsequent one, if the latter was plainly intended to cover the whole subject embraced by both, and prescribes the only rules in re spect to that subject that are to govern ; Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206, 10 Sup. Ct.
527, 33 L. Ed. 879.
Where a new statute expressly repeals the former statute, and the new and the re peal of the old are to take effect at the same time, a provision in the old statute which is embodied in the new is deemed to have con tinued in force without suspension; Fuller ton v. Spring, 3 Wis. 667. But it has been held that where the new law does not go into effect until a time subsequent to that at which the repeal takes effect, such a provi sion is to be deemed repealed meantime; State v. King, 12 La. Ann. 593. But see Spaulding v. Alford, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 33. As to what force should be given to por tions of a statute excepted from repeal, see Endlich, Interpr. Stat.; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 3 Sup. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030. A difference in the punctuation of similar statutes does not in all cases warrant a dif ferent construction, particularly when • the printer is responsible for it, and not the legis lature ; Griffiths v. Montandon, 4 Idaho, 377, 39 Pac. 548.
Where an amendment changes the phrase ology of a former act, it will be presumed that it was the intention to make a corres ponding change in its meaning ; U. S. v. Bashaw, 50 Fed. 749, 1 C. C. A. 653. Where a section of a statute is amended and after wards such section "as amended" is repealed, the original section, and not the amendment merely, is repealed; State v. Burk, 88 Ia. 661, 56 N. W. 180. The amendment of a statute does not repeal it so that a subsequent stat ute, which professes to amend the original act, is invalid.; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb. 724, 64 N. W. 348.
It is a general rule that when a penal stat ute punishes an offence by a certain penalty, and a new statute is passed imposing a great er or a lesser penalty for the same offence, the former statute is repealed by implica tion; Nichols v. Squire, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 168; Buckallew v. Ackerman, 8 N. J. L. 48 ; Ely v. Thompson, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 70; see Com. v. Duane, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 601, 2 Am. Dec. 497 ; Bacon, Abr. Statute (D); but subse quent statutes which add accumulative pen alties do not repeal former statutes ; 1 Cowp. 297 ; 6 Mod. 141.