Honorable James E. Barlow Opinion No. (C-612)
Criminal District Attorney
Bexar County Re: Whether paragraph'(b
San Antonio, Texas of Article 53.07 V.CX. .
becomes void and Imperative
due to the holding in AG
Opinion C-497 that para-
graphs (a) and (d) are void,
being in conflict with Sec.
61 of Article XVI of the
Texas Constitutionand re- . ..
Dear Mr. Barlow: lated question.
In an opinion request of this office you ask our
opinion on two (2) questions InvolvingArticle 53.03, Code
of Criminal Procedure of Texas, 1966. The two questions ,
you pose are as follows:
I'l. Does paragraph (b of Article 53.07, CCP-
become. void and noperatlve due to your
holding in Attorne General Opinion C-497
that paragraphs and (d) are void, being
in conflict with Section 61 of Article XVI
of the Texas Constitution?
“2. If paragraph (b) of Article 53.07, CCP is
sustained, what is the extent of its coverage?"
As you point out in your requist, Article 53.07, Vernon’s
Code of Criminal Procedure which became effective January 1,
1966, purported to make it mandatory that all Justices of
the Peace in Texss be compensatedon a salary rather than
a fee basis. On August 31, 1965, in Opinion No. C-497, this
office held unconstitutionalSections (a) and (d) aof Article
53.07 which two sections in effect set out that after Janwy
1, 1966, all of the Justices of the Peace in Texas will be
on a salary basis: We speclficallypointed out in that
opinion that its application extended only to Sections (a)
and (d). You now aek whether or not that holding rendered
lnoporativeSection (b) of said Article. Said Section (b)
states as follows:
-2966-
Honorable James E. Barlow, page 2 (c-612)
"All fines Imposed by justices of the
peace and all trial fees and other fees
which justices of the peace are required
by law~.tocollect shall be deposited to
the credit of the Officers' Salary Pund
of the county, or whichever fund is used
to pay the salaries of district, county
or precinct officers."
It Is our opinion that Article 53.07 (b) is not rendered
void or Inoperativeby our holding in Opinion No. C-497.
Article 54.01, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, 1966 entitled
"SeverabilityClause", reads as follows:
"If any provision, section or clause
of this Act or application thereof
to.any person or circumstancesIs held
Invalid, such invalidity shall not affect
other provisions or applicationshereof
which can be given effect without the
invalid provision, section or clause, and
to this end the provisions-ofthis Act
are.declaredto be severable.n
In 12 Tex. Jur. 2nd, 394, ConstitutionalLaw, Sec. 49,
Is found the following statement concerningthe affec,tof
having a severabilityclause:
,t . .When such a provision is fouhd in
a statute the courts will retain all the
valid portions of the statute even though *:,
they would have declared the entire act
Invalid without the saving clause. This
rule, however, Gill not be extended to
uphold the validity of a portion of an
act If that portion Is wholly dependent
on the Invalid portion."
In our opinion, Section b of Article 53.07, is not
a and (d) of that Artkle.
wholly dependent on Sections 11
Although on Its face subsection (b) would appear to have the
purpose of.lmplementlngsubsections (a) and (d), It cannot
be said that this Is its sole objective. Nor can it be
said that it could not be placed into effective operation
without subsection (a) and/or d). It is our opinion, there-
fore, that Opinion Number C-494 does not render inoperative
or void Section (b) of Article 53.07.
This leads us to your second inquiry. If subsection (b)
of Article 53.07 Is valid, what fines are required to be
-2967-
Honorable James E. Barlow, page 3 (c-612)
placed in the Officers Salary Fund? Article 16, Section
24, Constitutionof the Stata of Texas, states as follows:
'The Legislature shall make provision
for laying out and working public roads,
for the building of bridges and for
utilizing fines, forfeitures,and con-
vict labor to all these purposes."
.,
We do not construe this provision to make it mandatory
that all fines be used for the laying out and working of
public road and/or bridges, but rather that It directs
the Legislature to utlillze as It sees fit all or part of
fines for there purposes. Therefore, the fact that Article
53.07, direct8 that the fines collected by Justices of
the Peace be prid Into the Officers Salary Fund does not
place It In conflict with the above set out constitutional
provision.
Article 6701d, Sec. 144, Vernon's Clvll Statutes, en-
titled Disposltlon OS Fines and Forfeitures,is as follows:
“Fines collected for violation of any
highway laws as set forth in this Act
shall be used by the municipalityor the
counties in which the ssme are assessed
and to which the same are payable in
the constructionand maintenance of roads,
brldgas, and culverts therein and for
the enforcement of the traffic laws
regulating the use of the public highways
by motor vehicles and motorcycles and to
help defray the expense of county'traffic
officers."
Also, there are numerous similar statutes relating to
game, fish.and oyster laws. One such exsmple.isArticle 912,
Vernon's Penal Code, mich states, in part, as follows:
"Sectlori-1.It shall be the duty of any
justlco~of the peace, clerk of any court,
or any other officer of this state, receiving
any fine or penalty imposed by any court
for violation of any of the laws of this
state pertaining to the protection and
conservationof wild birds, wild foul, wild
animals, fish, oysters and other wild life
.to remit said fine or penalty. .to
th; Game, Fish and Oyster Commission: . .
-2968-
Honorable James E. Barlow, page 4 (c-612)
In justice court cases the amount to
be remitted to said commission shall
be eighty-five(85) fer cent of such
.finesand penalties.
Obviously, the new Code of Criminal Procedure and par-
ticulary Article 53.07 would be the latest expressionof
Legislativeintent concerningthe dispositionof ~flnes
assessed In Justice Courts. The favored rule of construction
is to reconcile the provisions of conflicting statutes if
at all possible and let them both stand. In 53 Tex. Jur.
2ndl34 Statutes, Sec. 102, is found the following statement:
"Where there is no expressed repeal the
presumption is that in enacting a new
law the Legislature Intended the old
statute to remain in operation. The
two acts will persist unless the con-
flicting provisions are so antagonistic
and repugnant that both can not stand...
If by any reasonable,constructiontwo
acts or statutoryprovisions can be
reconciledand so construed that both
may stand, one will not be held to re-
peal the other."
Also, it is observed that Article 53.07, is a eneral
statute pertaining to all fines while Article 6701 'f
d),
Section 144 and Article 912 are special statutes deal~ing
with specified fines. A rule of statutory constructionem-
ployed as an aid in determininglegislativeintent which
we feel is applicable is stated in 39 Tex. Jur. 149, Statutes,
Sec.~81, which is as follows:
"The enactmentof a general law does not
ordinarily operate as a repeal of a par-
ticular or special law by implication,al-
though both relate to the same subject matter.
On the contrary both statutes are permitted
to stand,,*andthe general law Is applicable
to all cases not embraced by the specific
act. In other words, the particular act
Is construed as constitutingan exception
to the general law. This Is said to be
a settled rule of construction,based
upon the presumption that a specific statute
evidences the intention of the legislature
more clearly then a general one, and there-
fore should control..."
-2969-
Honorable James E. Barlow, page 5 (c-612)
We believe that Article 6701d, Article 912 and Article
53.07 fall within the above quoted exceptions. Effect must
be given to all of these articles if possible. Article 912
and the other statutes relating to game and fish are specific
with regard to the fund into which fines will be paid. We
are of the opinion that when a specific statute such as this
is construed in connectionwith Article 53.07 which is a general
statute, the specific will control and all fines imposed by
any court for violation of the laws of this state pertaining
to game and fish and other wild life will be paid into the
fund designatedby the specific statutes.
With regard to Article 67Old, Section 144, it is noted
that the fines collected for the violation of highway laws
are payable to the road and bridge fund of the particular
county but may also be used for the enforcementof traffic
'laws regulating the use of public highways. The payment
of justice of the peace salaries certainly is part of the
enforcement of the traffice laws of the public highways.
Since justice of the peace tribunals are the primary tri-
bunals for the dispositionof these types of cases, we eee
no reason why some portion of the fines collect&d in a
county could not be designated for the Officers Salary Fund
of that county and be used to pay the salary of the particular
u&Ices of the peace of that county. Otherwise, Article
7016 dictates that all fines collected for violation of
l#
highway laws shall be paid into the road and bridge fund of
the county.
On the other hand, Article 53.07 will control with re-
gard to fines where there are no special statutes dealing
with those types of fines, and those fines shall be paid
into the Officers Salary Fund of the county as designatedby
Article 53.07. All fees collected by a Justice of the Peace
shall be paid Into the Officer's Salary Fund in accordance
with Article 53.07. Attorne General's 0 lnions Numberr
0-3820~ 1941 , o-4269 (194x7, 0~5681 (lgt,), o-ho5 (1945)
and v-465 (1927) and any other opinions, If any, in conflict
with the opinions expressed herein are overruled to the ox-,
tent OS such conflict.
SUHMARY
---w-w-
Paragraph (B) of Article 53.07, Code of Criminal
Procedure of Texas, 1966, is not void and in-
operative due to the holding in Attorney General's
Opinion C-497. Article 93.07, V.C.C.P. controls
the disposition of all fines collected in justice
of the peace court which are not otherwise covered
-2970-
Honorable James E. Barlow, page 6, (C&2)
by a special statute designatingthe fund into
which a particular fine is paid,
Yours very truly,
Waggoner Carr
Attorney General of Texas
SK/lb
APPROVED
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Lonnle Zwiener
Malcolm Quick
Ralph Rash
Robert E. Owen
APPROVEDPOR~ATTORNEYGENERAL
BY: T. B. Wright
-2971-