Board of State Harbor Commissioners—Jurisdiction Over Channel Street—Ebb and Flow of Tide Water.—The act of March 15, 1878» which specially extends the jurisdiction of the board of state harbor commissioners in and over Channel street, “as far as the ebb and flow of tide water,” is not to be construed as confining their jurisdiction to that portion only of Channel street where the tide ebbs and flows, but as extending it as far as the tide ebbs and flows and to all parts of Channel street.

In.—Action of Ejectment—Pleading—Admission.—The commissioners are authorized by section 2523 of the Political Code, taken together with section 2524 of the same code and the act- of 1878, to bring an action of ejectment in the name of the people, to recover possession of a strip of land in Channel street over which the tide ebbs and flows; and where the verified com-' plaint alleges that the tide ebbs and flows over the premises in controversy, and the allegation is not denied, it cannot be claimed by the defendant that the land is separated from the canal by a bulkhead, and that the tide does not ebb and flow over it.

Id.—Act of 1878 not Repealed by Implication—The act of 1878, providing that “the inshore limit of the jurisdiction of the board of state harbor commissioners shall he and remain the same as defined in section 2524 of the Political Code,” and specially extending- their jurisdiction in and over Channel street “as far as the ebb and flow of tide water,” is not repealed by Implication as to the latter provision by the subsequent amendments of 1887 and 1889 to section 2524 of the Political Code, there being no radical inconsistency between these amendments and that special provision of the act of 1878 which can still stand and be read as a part of that section as amended, and as a proviso thereto.

Construction of Statutes—Repeal by Implication not Favored.—The law does not favor a repeal by implication, and where there are two or more provisions in relation to the same subject matter, they must, if possible, be construed so as to maintain the integrity of both; and the repugnancy between them should be very clear to sustain a repeal by Implication.

In.—Special and General Statutes.—Where a special and a general statute treat of the same subject, the special act will control as to its special provisions, and will not be deemed repealed by implication by a later general statute, although the terms of the general statute, taken strictly, would include the terms of the special statute, if they are not irreconcilably inconsistent, and if there is no manifest intention of the legislature to repeal or alter the special statute.