Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/354

existing law which authorized the commissioners to appoint a person to perform their clerical work. Section 4 reads: “All acts and parts of acts in.conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed.” We are convinced, after careful consideration, that the state constitution, which creates three commissioners of railroads to be chosen by popular vote, when read in connection with the comprehensive body of statutes enacted at the first session of the state legislature, covering all of the ground embraced in the territorial laws upon the samc subjects, must be held to have effected a total abrogation of all territorial statutes which created a board of railroad commissioners, and defined their powers and duties, including the power to appoint a secre- tary of the board. The creation of the constitutional officers to be elected by the voters necessarily implies the abolition of the board appointed by the governor, as the two sets of officers, in the same sphere of duty, could not co-exist, and exercise their powers, without a clash in jurisdiction. All duties which, under territorial laws, were devolved upon the board, are now cast upon the commissioners of railroads, by statutes passed since statehood, except only the duty of appointing an officer who was described in the territorial statute as a secretary, which officer was to be appointed by the board, without reference to the approval of the governor, whereas, under state law, the commissioners are empowered to appoint a clerk, but such appointment does not take effect until approved by the governor of the state. The feature of the approval of the governor,’required by the state statutes of both 1890 and 1891, marks a clear departure from the old system, and indicates to our mind a purpose in the state legislature to abolish the old system of allowing the board to appoint a secretary without consulting the governor, and substituting therefor the plan of executive approval of such appointment. The two systems of filling the two clerical offices in question differ so radically that we are satisfied that the state legislature intended to wipe out the old method, and substitute another. We think the legislative intent was to cast the same clerical duties which,