You request our opinion on whether a recent amendment to article 322, V.T.C.S., has the effect of creating the office of District Attorney for the Fifth This office was expressly abolished as of January 1, 1969, Judicial District. o~,n t h Ed creation of the office of Criminal District Attorney for Bowie County by section 8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S.

The amendatory Act in question is Senate Bill No. 574, Acts 1975, 64th The title to this Act states only that it is “An Act ch. 378, p. 983. Leg., amending Article 322, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, as amended. . . . ” 322, V. T. C. S., provides for the election of a District Attorney in

Article 44 numbered judicial districts and for the election of a Criminal District Attorney in several named counties. The 1975 amendment republished the entire article but the only change consisted of the deletion of the name of Harris County from the list of counties which are to elect a Criminal ‘District Attorney.

The paramount rule in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to Dolan v. Walker, 49 S. W. 2d 695, 697 (Tex. Sup. the intention of the Legislature. by re-enacting and publishing 1932). The issue here is whether the Legislature, at length the entire article amended pursuant to the requirements of article 3, section 36 of the Texas Constitutionintended to re-establish an office which has been expressly abolished by another statute, thereby impliedly repealing section 8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S.

The only legislative intent discernible from the title and actual change made by the 1.975 amendment of article 322, V. T. C-S., is an intent to delete Harris County from the list of counties which are to elect Criminal District Attorneys. p. 3062

The Honorable Lynn Cooksey : page 2 (H-711)

Repeals by implication are never favored and the Legislature is presumed to know of an existing law on the same subject, and when the later act is silent as to the older law, in this case section 8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S. , the presumption is that its continued operation was intended, unless thev present a contradiction so positive that the purpose of repeal is manifest. Cole v. State ex rel Cobolini, 170 S. W. 1036, 1037 (Tex. Sup. 1914).

In our opinion, the Legislature did not intend to re-establish the office of District Attorney of the Fifth Judicial District by its amendment of article 322 and the reference to that nonexistent office was inadvertent. See Attorney General The express abolition of the office by sxion 8 of article Opinion H-687( 1975). is the clearest evidence of the Legislature’s intent on the 326 k~-58, V. T. C. S., subject and must prevail. 53 Tex. Jur. 2d Statutes $ 161.

SUMMARY There is no office of District Attorney in the Fifth Judicial District.

Xery truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

Opinion Committee

jad:

p. 3063