from should be reversed, notwithstanding the fact that it is supported by the decision in the Diamond Mills Paper Company case.

In considering this question it is to be borne in mind that an inferential repeal of a statute is a pure question of intention, and that every reasonable intendment will be made against such result; that such destroying effect will be deemed to reside in the more recent statute only when it is absolutely irreconcilable with the prior one. Ruckman v. Ransom, 35 N. J. Law 565; Hotel Registry Corporation v. Stafford, 70 N. J. Law 528, 57 Atl. 145. And this is peculiarly true with reference to statutes enacted at the same session of the legislature. If it is possible to do so, they should receive a construction which will give effect to each. Each is supposed to speak the mind of the same legislature, and the words used in each should be qualified and restricted, if necessary, in their construction, so as to give validity and effect to every other act passed at the same session. The presumption is that different acts passed at the same session of the legislature are imbued by the same spirit, and actuated by the same policy, and that one was not intended to repeal or destroy the other. Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Con., vol. 1, § 268.

The State sewerage commission statute of 1899 was revised and amended by the legislature of 1900 (P. L., p. 113). The amendments, however, made little change in the original statute, except by increasing the powers of the commission. The question, therefore, to be determined is whether the provisions of the later act of 1899, as amended in the year 1900, are so manifestly inconsistent with, and repugnant to, the provisions of the earlier act, as to disclose a clear intent on the part of the legislature to repeal it. The State sewerage commission act, after prescribing for the composition of the commission, and the term of office of its members, imposes upon them the duty of investigating the various methods of sewage disposal, in order that it may be able to make proper recommendations in regard thereto; the investigating of all complaints of the pollution of the waters of the State which shall be brought to its notice, and if they shall find that any of the waters of the State are being polluted to the injury of any of its inhabitants, either in their health, comfort or property, to notify in writing any person, corporation or municipality found to be polluting such waters. It then provides that, prior to a time to be fixed by such commission, which time shall not be more than five years from the date of its notice, said person, corporation or municipality must cease to pollute said waters, and make such disposition of their sewage, or other polluting matter, as shall be approved by the State sewerage commission. It then confers upon any person, corporation or municipality aggrieved by the finding of the commission an appeal to the Court of Chancery, which court is empowered by the act to confirm the finding of the commission, or to reverse or modify it in whole or in part. The act then provides that it shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or municipality to build any sewer, drain or sewerage system from which it is designed that any sewage or other harmful and deleterious matter, solid or liquid, shall flow into any of the waters of this State, so as to pollute, or render impure, such waters, except under such conditions as shall be approved by the State sewerage commission, but declares that this provision shall not be deemed to prohibit the use or extension of existing sewers, drains or sewerage systems, unless the person, corporation or municipality controlling the same shall be served with a notice to cease pollution, as thereinbefore provided. It then provides that it shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or municipality to build, or cause to be built, or operate, any plant for the treatment of sewage, or other polluting substance, from which the effluent is to flow into any of the waters

of this State, except under such conditions as shall be approved by the State sewerage commission, to whom plans shall be submitted before building, and, further, that it shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or municipality, after the date specified in the notice before mentioned, to permit or allow any sewage, or other polluting matter, to flow into said waters from any sewer, drain, or sewerage system, except under such conditions as shall be approved by the State sewerage commission. Authority is then conferred upon the commission to apply to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to prevent violations of the provisions of the act.

It seems quite clear, from a reading of the provisions of this act, that the powers conferred upon the State sewerage commission are much less extensive than those conferred upon the State board of health by the earlier statute. The sewerage commission is only to take proceedings where actual pollution of the waters of the State is shown to exist; whereas, the State board of health is authorized to invoke the aid of the Court of Chancery whenever the polluting matter, either by itself, or in connection with other matter, corrupts or impairs, or tends to corrupt or impair, the stream from which any municipality obtains its water-supply. The State sewerage commission, before applying. to the Court of Chancery for its injunction, must first notify the offending party to stop the pollution of the water, and must fix the time within which the pollution shall cease; whereas, the State board of health may sue out an injunction to restrain the forbidden acts immediately upon ascertaining their existence. The State board of health may restrain the deposit of all kinds of polluting matter upon the ice of any stream, or upon the banks thereof, while the supervision of the State sewerage commission would seem to be limited to such pollution as comes from sewers, drains, sewerage systems, or sewerage disposal works. It is, of course, apparent, from an examination of the two statutes, that the powers conferred upon the State board of health by the earlier acts have been considerably modified and restricted by the later act; but this fact affords no ground for imputing to the legislature an intent to repeal the earlier act in toto. Bearing in mind the settled rule of construction in determining whether a statute has been repealed by implication, all that can be said in the present case is that such of the provisions of "An act to secure the purity of public supplies of potable waters in this State" as are repugnant to the provisions of the later statute are repealed, and that the remaining portions thereof are unaffected by the later act.

The conduct of the appellant which is made the ground of its action by the State board of health, namely, the permitting waste water from the washing of cans and bottles in his creamery, and from the cleansing of its floors, to flow into a tributary of the Pequannock river, a stream from which the city of Newark obtains its water-supply, is an act not placed within the cognizance of the State sewerage commission by the statute which created that body. The power to invoke the aid of the Court of Chancery to restrain such action, therefore, still remains with the State board of health. The decree appealed from should be affirmed.

Actions were brought to prevent pollutions of public water-supplies in the following cases: John Forgerson, premises located on the Pequannock water shed. The nuisance was abated. Gustav and Emma Gnauch, premises located on the Hackensack water shed. Nuisance abated and permanent injunction issued. Samuel Card, premises located on the Pequannock water shed. Nuisance abated. James Leech, action pending. Maria Davenport, nuisance abated.

New Jersey Sanitary Association.

The meeting of the New Jersey Sanitary Association for 1907 was held in conjunction with that of the American Public Health Association, in Atlantic City, Tuesday, October 1st. The following program was presented:

Invocation-Rev. H. M. Gesner, pastor First Presbyterian Church, Atlantic City. Introductory Remarks and Announcements-Dr. E. Guion, chairman Executive Council. President's Address-"Evolution of Associations-The State Sanitary in Particular," Dr. G. K. Dickinson, Jersey City. Reports of Chairmen of Committees. Symposium on the Ideal Milk of the Future. Ideal Dairying and Transportation-Prof. R. A. Pearson, Ithaca, N. Y; Prof. E. B. Voorhees, New Brunswick. Ideal Milk-Natural, Pasteurized, Condensed, Dessicated-Sanitary and Dietetic Values. Ideal Methods of Local DistributionCivic or Individual. Ideal Control-Government, State, Civic, Boards of Health or Commissions, the latter philanthropic or appointed by central authority. Medical Control-Dr. H. L. Coit, Newark. Municipal Control-Dr. Thomas Darlington, New York City. The general topic presented by Dr. C. B. Lane, of Washington, D. C. Discussion by Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, of Washington, D. C. Report of Treasurer. Report of Meeting of Executive Council. Election of officers. Adjournment. Officers for 1907 were as follows: President, Gordon K. Dickinson, M.D., Jersey City; first Vice President, John B. Duncklee, C.E., S. Orange; second Vice President, Wm. G. Schauffler, M.D., Lakewood; third Vice President, Rudolph Hering, C.E., Montclair; secretary, James A. Exton, M.D., Arlington; treasurer, George P. Olcott, C.E., East Orange; ch. ex. council, Edward Guion, M.D., Atlantic City.

(243)

Circulars and Laws.

During the legislative session of 1907 the following bills relating to the public health were introduced:

ASSEMBLY BILLS.

*No. 51, Mr. Brady. Authorizes cities having a public water-supply derived from sources beyond the city limits, in order to protect such water from pollution, to maintain a system of drains and sewers for intercepting all sewage and other polluting matters; the construction of such sewers shall be approved by the State board of health; a bond issue is authorized not to exceed $100,000. (Public Health.)

No. 54, Mr. Mead. Provides for a board for the examination and licensing of plumbers, consisting of four members, in all cities having a public system of sewers; one of these shall be chief health inspecting officer, one a journeyman plumber, one the plumbing inspector, and one a master plumber; all to be appointed by the board of health; the fee for the original licensing of a journeyman plumber is $1; for a master plumber, $5; renewal fees, $1; it is made unlawful to do any plumbing without a license. (Public Health.)

No. 105, Mr. Corish. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine of not more than $200, or one year's imprisonment, for selling cocaine or any remedy containing cocaine, except by prescription or notice that such remedy contains cocaine. (Public Health.)

No. 120, Mr. Hahn. Authorizes the State board of health to prescribe and fix territorial limitations whenever any sewer system is constructed under any board of health, wherein such State board of health shall regulate or prohibit the use of toilets, water closets and urinals on railroad trains and other vehicles. (Public Health.)

No. 178, Mr. Baader. Prohibits and forbids every municipality, corporation and individual from discharging directly or indirectly any sewage or other polluting matter into the waters of the Passaic river or any of its tributaries at any point between the falls in Paterson and the mouth of the river in Newark bay after December 12th, 1912, and authorizes the Passaic Valley sewerage commissioners to enforce the act. Any one violating its provisions after such date the Court of Chancery is vested with special jurisdiction to enforce the act in a summary manner. The sewerage commissioners shall submit maps, plans and specifications for the construction of a joint trunk or main intercepting sewer or sewers for such municipalities as lie within the Passaic Valley sewerage district. These municipalities may enter into contract with the sewerage commission for the construction, maintenance and operation of such sewers, the cost of which shall be by the contract apportioned annually to the respective municipalities entering therein according to