The opinion
ON Petition to Rehear.
In the original opinion we undertook to deal, in a general way, with the material issues involved, and held *694 that chapter 434 of the Acts of 1907 was not repealed, by implication, by subsequent enactments.
We did not specifically refer to chapter 75 of the Acts of 1923, which contained this provision (referring to privilege taxes exacted of insurance companies), to-wit, ‘•shall be in lieu of all other taxes.”
In the enactment of general revenue statutes, passed at previous sessions of the legislature, the corresponding provision was, “Shall be in lieu of all other privilege' taxes.” The act of 1923 omitted the word “privilege.” But it should be borne in mind that the legislature was dealing with privilege taxes, and was without power to exempt such companies from ad valorem taxes, and, if it be construed as exempting the companies from ad valor-em taxes, then that provision of the act would be invalid. In order to save that clause in the act, we feel justified in interpolating the word “privilege,” because such was the legislative intent. The word “privilege” is implied from the context and from the legislative, history with respect to similar clauses, and its meaning is the same as that expressed in previous enactments, viz. an inhibition against the counties and municipalities levying a privilege tax.
Section 2 of chapter 75 of the Acts of 1923, contained a clause that this act shall not “be construed as repealing any special act heretofore passed, imposing a privilege tax. ’ ’
Chapter 434 of the Acts of 1907 was a special act imposing a privilege tax.
That the legislature did not, by chapter 75 of the Acts of 1923, intend to repeal chapter 434 of the Acts of 1907, is further supported by the fact that, by chapter 21 *695 of the Acts of 1923, 'the legislature provided that insurance companies paying an excise tax should have credit for the fees paid pursuant to chapter 434 of the Acts of 1907. And, as pointed out in the original opinion, section 6 of chapter 134 of the Acts of 1925 expressly excluded the fees paid under the act of 1907.
The many questions dealing with the implied repeal of chapter 434 of the Acts of 1907 were considered by the court, and the conclusion reached that the legislature never intended to repeal the act of 1907, and the legislative intent is controlling.
In our former opinion we held that, since chapter 434 of the Acts of 1907 was Pot a property tax, the legislature had the power to pass it solely as a revenue measure. Taking that view of the matter, we were unable then or now to see how its validity was affected by the amendatory act (chapter 13, First Extra Session of 1913), which provided that the fees, less the cost of collection, should be turned into the State treasury, and considered it unnecessary to specifically refer to the latter act.
The petition to rehear is without merit, and will be denied.