Opinion of the Court.

(§ 3,) "to abolish any office, to consolidate two or more offices, reduce the number of employés, remove from office and make appointments to any office under them authorized by law." If this were all the legislation, there would be no question, for the grant of a general power to remove carries with it the right to remove at any time or in any manner deemed best, with or without notice; but the contention of the plaintiff in error is, that this unrestricted right of removal is limited by the provisions of prior statutes.

In 1861 an act was passed creating a metropolitan police system for the District of Columbia, and establishing a police for such district. 12 Stat. 320, c. 62. By that act a board, consisting of five commissioners, was created, to whom was given full control over the police force. This board was continued until the act of 1878, and its power of removal was limited by this provision: "No person shall be removed from the police force except upon written charges preferred against him to the board of police, and after an opportunity shall have been afforded him of being heard in his defence; and no person removed from the police force for cause shall be reappointed to any office in said force." Sec. 8 of the act of 1861,

And the contention is

embodied in Rev. Stat. D. C. § 355. that the act of 1878 simply changed the control from one board to another; that this limitation on the power of removal was not expressly repealed by the act of 1878; that repeals by implication are not favored; and therefore that, construing the old law with the new, whatever power the new board had over other subordinates, its power over the police was subject to that limitation. On the other hand, it appears that in 1871 an act was passed providing a government for the District of Columbia. 16 Stat. 419, c. 62. This established a territorial government, with a governor and legislative assembly, to which the general administration of the affairs of the District was committed. It did not change the police department, which was left, as theretofore, under the charge of the police commissioners. This territorial system not proving satisfactory, Congress, in 1874, (18 Stat. 116,) abolished it, and vested the affairs of the District in a commission. That act VOL. CXXXV-16

Opinion of the Court.

contained the provision we have heretofore quoted from the act of 1878; and gave to this commission large powers of administration, but without control of the police or the schools. Evidently this scheme of administration was experimental, as section 5 of the act provided for the appointment of a committee of Congress, to prepare a suitable frame of government for the District and report the same to the succeeding Congress. The experiment was found to be satisfactory, and in 1878, four years thereafter, the act from which we first quoted was passed, which was entitled "An act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia." Following the idea and enlarging the scope of the act of 1874, the general administration of affairs was vested in a commission, and to that commission was given control also over the police and schools; for by section 6 it was provided: "That from and after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, the board of metropolitan police and the board of school trustees shall be abolished; and all the powers and duties now exercised by them shall be transferred to the said commis sioners of the District of Columbia, who shall have authority to employ such officers and agents and to adopt such provisions as may be necessary to carry into execution the powers and duties devolved upon them by this act. And the commissioners of the District of Columbia shall, from time to time, appoint nineteen persons, actual residents of said District of Columbia, to constitute the trustees of public schools of said District, who shall serve without compensation and for such terms as said commissioners shall fix. Said trustees shall have the powers and perform the duties in relation to the care and management of the public schools which are now authorized by law."

It will be noticed that a distinction is provided between-the police and the schools. An intermediate board is to be appointed for the latter, while the direct control of the police is given to the commissioners; and they "are authorized to adopt such provisions as may be necessary to carry into execution the powers and duties devolved upon them by this act." When to a board having general administrative supervision of

Opinion of the Court.

the affairs of a community, and with plenary power in the matter of appointment and removal of subordinates, is added the control of another department, and no express words of limitation are found in the act making the transfer, it is to be presumed that such board has the same plenary power in respect to this new department, and is not hampered by limitations attached to the board which theretofore had control of it. The presumption against implied repeal obtaining in the construction of ordinary statutes yields to the inferences arising from the subject matter of legislation. Plenary powers having been found by experience valuable in the management of affairs already under the control of the board, the transfer of another department to the same control carries with it a strong implication that the added department is subject to the same plenary powers. The primary thought is not a mere transfer of authority, but the bringing of the added depart ment within the control of the general supervising board. It is unity of administration and not change of commission.

But our conclusions are not controlled by this construction alone. The court below placed its decision on what we conceive to be the true significance of the act of 1878. As said by that court, it is to be regarded as an organic act, intended to dispose of the whole question of a government for this District. It is, as it were, a constitution for the District. It is declared by its title to be an act to provide "a permanent form of government for the District." The word permanent is suggestive. It implies that prior systems had been temporary and provisional. As permanent it is complete in itself. It is the system of gov nment. The powers which are conferred are organic powers. We look to the act itself for their extent and limitations. It is not one act in a series of legisla tion, and to be made to fit into the provisions of the prior legislation, but is a single complete act, the outcome of previous experiments, and the final judgment of Congress as to the system of government which should obtain. It is the constitution of the District, and its grants of power are to be taken as new and independent grants, and expressing in themselves both their extent and limitations. Such was the view

Opinion of the Court.

taken by the court below; and such we believe is the true view to be taken of the statute. Regarded in this light, but one interpretation can be placed upon the section quoted. The power to remove is a power without limitations. The power is granted in general terms, as well as the authority to adopt such provisions as may be necessary to carry it into execution. Full authority is given to the commission; and in the absence of rules and regulations directing a different procedure, its act of summary dismissal cannot be challenged. The judgment is affirmed.

BEATTY v. BENTON.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

In this case, on a writ of error to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of a State, it was held that no federal question was involved, because the case was decided by the state court on a ground broad enough to maintain the judgment independently of any federal question; and the writ was dismissed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Salem Dutcher for plaintiffs in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 3d of May, 1854, one Carrie executed and delivered to Elijah D. Robertson, a white man, a warranty deed of a lot of land in Augusta, Georgia, 82 feet 6 inches in width by 200 feet in depth. The consideration expressed in the deed was $600, and it conveyed to Robertson, his heirs and assigns, forever, the lot in question, in trust, nevertheless, to and for the sole nse benefit and behoof of the following free persons of

Opinion of the Court.

color, of Augusta, "to wit, Fanny Gardner, the wife of Thomas Gardner, and their daughter, Frances Gardner, and any future issue of the said Fanny by the said Thomas, and, in case of the death of the said Frances and Fanny, in trust for the next of kin of the said Thomas Gardner." The deed also authorized Robertson, in case it should be deemed advisable and to the interest of all concerned that a sale of the property should take place, to sell and make titles to it, provided the consent of the said Frances and Fanny, their guardian or guardians, should be first had and obtained.

In March, 1879, Fanny Gardner filed a bill in equity, in the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia, setting forth the purchase of the lot of land by Gardner from Carrie, for $600, and the making of such deed; that Gardner, who was her husband, and the father, by a former wife, of Frances Gardner, who had intermarried with one Beatty, died in 1865; that all of those persons were free persons of color; that, on the 3d of May, 1854, Gardner and the plaintiff and Frances took possession of the property; that afterwards, Frances having married, Gardner divided the lot and erected a house on a part of it for Frances; that the parties thus continued in possession of the property until the death of Gardner; that from that time Frances had remained in the possession of the portion of the lot on which the house was erected for her use, and the plaintiff had occupied the remaining part of the lot; that the deed to Robertson was void, because at that time all conveyances of real estate in Augusta to or for the use of free persons of color residing therein were prohibited by law; that the plaintiff acquired title to the property occupied by her, by actual adverse possession of the same for twenty years, and Frances had acquired title in the same way to the premises occupied by her; that the plaintiff desired to sell her part of the property, but could not do so, because Frances claimed that, under the terms of the trust deed, she owned a remainder interest in the whole of the property, and the plaintiff had only a life estate therein; and that the property could not be sold except with the consent of Frances.

The bill prayed for a decree that the plaintiff owned a fee