of the act of 1899, not being in conflict with the act of 1907, is not repealed.

The object and purpose of the legislation above referred to are, and the rules of the board ought to be, to secure efficiency among physicians, and it is my opinion that in view of the high standing of these several affiliated schools, the purpose of the statute and of the rules is fully met by these several institutions. In the journal above referred to, I have had the advantage of an analysis of some 162 medical colleges, and the three above mentioned are the only ones out of that number that I find to be affiliated schools, though I am advised there are others. iIany of the medical colleges of the United States have departments at different places; but these several departments, with the excep- tion of the three schools above referred to, are under the direct control and management of the one single corporation or board, and while, in my opinion, the Indiana State University and the State College of Physicians and Surgeons, by their articles of affiliation do not come within the letter of the rule above referred to, they do meet the requirements of the objects and purposes of all such legislation and rules. ENTOMOLOGIST (STATE)-LAWS OF 1899 AND 1907 NOT IN CONFLICT. July 9, 1907. Ion. Benjamin W. Douglas, State Entomologist, Indianapolis, Indiana: Dear Sir-You ask me in your letter of July 6, for my opinion whether the re-enactment of the nursery laws in 1907 in any way repeals section 8 of the old law, being Acts of 1899, p. 226. I -have carefully considered your suggestion that section 3 of the new law (Acts 1907, p. 292) is in conflict with section 8, but I can not approve that suggestion for two reasons: 1st. In my opinion the two sections are not in conflict in any particular. 2nd. The two sections stood together side by side in the old law as it was originally drafted without any thought by anybody of there being any conflict. The present section 3 is nothing more or less than old section 1 and part of old section 2, and makes no provision for any- thing except an annual inspection by the state entomologist, and conferring the necessary power to enter upon premises to make examinations. Section 8 in my opinion is the real meat of this kind of legis- 240 lation and gives your orders more force and authority of law. It is a well known principle of statutory construction that where a later statute covers'the whole ground of the earlier and plainly shows that it was intended to be a substitute for the earlier act, the later act will operate as a repeal of the former law, even though the two are not repugnant. But to this general rule there is a well defined exception to the effect that where the revisory statute declares what effect it is intended to have on the former only such effect can be given it. Within the exception come all cases where the act itself provides that such provisions of the earlier act as are inconsistent with it are to be repealed, only the inconsistent provisions being thereby repealed. Patterson v. Tatum, 3 Lowry (U. S. ) 164; Barden v. Wells, 14 Mont. 462; Lewis v. Stout, 22 Wis. 34; End. Int. Stat. Sec. 203; Am. & Eng. Encyc. 26, p. 733; State v. Pollard, 6 R. I. 290; Cooley on Tax. 2 ed. 199; Robinson v. Rippey, 111 Ind. 112; The State v. Wells, 112 Ind. 237. Section 11 of the acts of 1907 reads as follows: "All laws and parts of laws in conflict are hereby repealed." I am therefore of the opinion that section 8 of the act of 1899, not being in conflict with the act of 1907, is not repealed. INSANE, .NORTHERN HOSPITAL FOh-USE OF PORTION OF GOVERNOR'S EMERGENCY CONTINGENT FUND TO SUPPLY DEFICIENCY IN AMOUNT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE TWO NEW COTTAGES. July 9, 1907. ion. J. Frank Hanly, Governor of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana: Dear Sir-In your communication of July 1 you ask whether certain correspondence from the superintendent and board of trustees of the Northern Hospital for the Insane, submitted there- with, discloses such an emergency as will legally justify you in using a portion of the emergency fund for the benefit of that institution. The papers enclosed show that the board of trustees entered into contracts for the construction of two new cottages, which contracts, for the most part, called for material only and did