Viewing page 11 of 21

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

complete jurisdiction over all such public lands.

Another consideration to be noted, and which strengthens our holding that there was in fact such a repeal, is the absence of Sec. 70 from the subsequent compilation and codification of 1915-- and it likewise does not appear in the next compilation, that of 1929. No specific repealing acts are to be found in any legislation between the periods of 1907 and 1915. The compilers and codifiers of the 1915 code, and the 1915 Legislature in adopting the work, evidently gave the same interpretation as to the repeal of this Sec. 70 as we here employ.

It is true that any amendment of the act subsequent to any rights of appellant attaching to the land in 1908, when they did attach if at all, would not affect such right; but we hold no right attached. We cite the omission from the compilation merely as affording additional support to our own appraisal -- that there being a conflict between the two acts in question, the provision of the latter act controls and said Sec. 70 was thereby repealed.

The codification of 1915 was enacted with the purpose of harmonizing conflicting sections, and the entire code was enacted as statutory law by the 1915 legislative session. See 1915, page 1665; N. M. Stat. Ann. Comp. 1929 Sec. 138-101. Every section from the first to the last is held to be enacted by the Act. It is immaterial as to the source of the material included in the Act, whether coming from old statutes, decisions of the court, or whether the matter be entirely new. Ex parte Bustillos, 26 N. M. 450, 194 P. 886. It was, of course, the purpose of the legislature to continue in force all statutes so far as necessary to afford protection to parties who had initiated rights under such statutes. This is shown by the language of the saving clause. Harris v. Friend, 24 N. M. 627, 635, 175 P. 722.

Denial of appellant's right is based, not upon the treatment of the conflicting statues by the 1915 Code, but upon the fact that Sec. 70 in question was repealed by said Chap. 104,

-7-