Case Information
*1 Honorable Charles S. I&Millan
County Attorney
San Augustine County
San Augustine, Texas Opinion No.' O-l717
Dear Sir: Effect of House Concurrent NO: Resolution 194, ,adopted 'June ,' 30;: 1939,~ on Senate Bill No. 89, Acts of 46th Legislature.
We are inreceipt of your letter of November 18, 1939, in, which you request a reconsider.ation of hour .Opinion No. O-1118. You are concerned with the effect of Houses ~Concurrcnt Resolution 194 on Senate Bill No. 89, Acts, 46th Legislature.
Opinion~Eo.GU18 held th& Senate Bill No, 89 did not donate all subdivision losses, such as schools, roads, etc. in addition to donating .the county ad valorea losses in each county. Ve believe that sa~id opinion correctly knterpreted the provisions of said Act.
Senate Bill No.89 was approved on Bay 15, 1939. Rouse Concurrent Resolution 194 waspassed on June 30, Said Resolution provides as follows:
%REREAS, Senate Bill No. 89 tias passed bg the Fortyysegular Seesion~ of the Te~xas Legislature; and
'%E@QAS, The ComRtroller of public Accounts of this State is in question as to the extent aid can be granted to the counties included in the provisions of said Act; now, ther.efore, be it
,"RESOLVEL,by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, That is hereby expressed that the intent of the Forty-sixth Legislature in conformity with the purpose for which said Act was passed, was that aid should be granted to each of said counties to reimburse for tax loss on
- - Hon. Charlea S. M$di&, page 2, O-1717
the land purchases by the Federal Govesnment, including county, school, and road uistrict'tax levies, ,and it was not bnten8'ld to be limitedto~ the, amount Levied and collected by the respective,cbu&j.e'a for'&eneral'Revenus purpose only." Resolution atte~.tg~anXy~ts'exp~ain,the, legis-
Whi$e~saih lative intention in Senate Bill No. 89,'weIPare.'of$he~ opinion: that the same if.g$ven effect louId operate to'ainendthe te.rms of said Senate Bill.. The Resolution provides for Ohe .donati,?n~ $0 l&s counties of ,the amount lost by the school: ai~d.ro,ad:d~stricts, while the original Act makes no such donat,ion.
A similar situation confronted the..Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Caples vs. Cole, 102 S.W. (28.7 173. Rouse Bill 35’8 had been passed by the 42nd Legislature in Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4 was later adopted by the 42pd Legfslature which Resolution attempted to set out the legis~let&va $.ntent$on in House Bill 3.58 in the following language:
n . .' .That it was the intenti~n'of~~he~.L~gislatur~., and is now the intention of:'theeLegis3.ature that, public school land occup5.M by mistake ,as,provided~ln said Sec.
5 . . ."
The dupreme Court stated,as f&lows: "It la plain that thee resolution sot only~undertakes to interpret or construe !hat the, orig%nal Act opnt~aincd, but also to read into said law words and'intantions not expressed in the original Act. Stat,utes cs.nnqt;Pe awqde$ in that manner. Resolutions play their @art i,n our legis- lative'history, nd are oftenresorted to for the purpose of expressd,ng the will of the Lagislature, but statutes cannot be amended by resolutions.",'
Unquestionably the court's crit$ciom of .Senate Concurrent Resolution No, 4 in the Caples case ~would a$so.apply here*to Rouse
Concurrent Reso ution Non.: '~9b, since we can find no .ambuguity in Senate Bill No., ii 9 sufficient to 'take.:,$t gut of the rule suet out in said ease.
It la the opinion ,of ~this dspa~0mu~t."Chs~refore, thtt Opinion No. O-l+118 correctly construes Senate '%XL.No:,' '89 and that Rouse Concurrent Resolution No., 194 is' ineperet'ivs beaause sa/d Resolut~lon attsmpts~ to amend the prior Aqt,,,",:) ~,~ ~'
Ws did not, ~1x1 opinion 30. &l>Ii$,:.&d do not by.thhl.s :: ,.,
.,,.,
Hon. Charles S. McMillan, page 3 O-1717
opinion, pass on the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 89.
Very truly yours ATTORNEY GENERm OF TEXAS Cecil C. Cammack BY Assistant Billy Goldberg BY Assistant BG:N--pm
APIROVD DEC 23 1939
GERALD C. MANN
ATTORNEY GENEJUL OF TEXAS
APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE
BY BW3, CHAIRMAN