THE,~ITORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
Hon. Zollle Steakley OPINION NO. MN-260
Searetary of State
Capitol Station Re: Proper construotlon of
Austin, Texas House Bills 2j'Oand 268
of the 55th Legislature
relating to exemptions
for corporations from the
Dear Mr. Steakley: payment of franchise tax.
You request the opinion of this office upon the
question presented in your letter of August 9, 1957, whloh
reads as follows:
"The opinion of your office is requested
concerning the proper oonstruatlon of House
Bills 270 and 268, Acts of the 55th Leglsla-
lature, each of which is in the form of an
amendment to Article 7094.
"House Bill 2i'Obecame effective upon the
approval of the Governor on May 6, 1957; House
Bill 268 became effective upon the approval of
the Governor on May 31, 1957. The dates of
approval by the Governor in each instance fol-
lowed the course of the Bills through the Legis-
lature.
"The problem involves the exemption in House
Bill 2i'Oread: 'Corporations having no capital
stock and organized for the exclusive purpose
of promoting the public Interest of any city,
town, county or otherarea.wlthln the State-.;
House Bill 270 was obviouslv enacted to extend
this exemption to l~countyo> other area1 Chambers
of Commerce, as well as other corporations which
might qualify.
"House Bill 268 was obviously enaeted to exempt
'non-profit oorporations having no capital stock
organized for the purpose of education of the
public in the protection and conservation of fish,
game and other wildlife, grass lands and forests.'
Hon. Zollie Steakley Page 2 Opinion No. ww-260
"However, House Bill 268 omits the language
fop other area within the State' in the
exemption of corporations organized for
the exclusive purpose of promoting the
public Interest. House Bill 268 became ef-
feative subsequent to House Bill 270.
"I am Inclined to read these statutes
in pari materia and give effect to both,
since to hold otherwise would seem to
defeat obvious Legislative Intent. How-
ever, I feel that I should have your
official opinion since the question does
involve an exemption from the franchise
tax, even though of a very minor nature."
&th Bills (House Bill 270 and House Bill 268)
szan&+dArticle 7094, Vernon's Civil Statutes. To answer
your question, we do not deem It necessary to set out these
respective Bills. They were both passed at the same Session
of the Legislature; namely, the 55th, 1957, and both passed
with the required record vote to make them effective upon
approval by the Governor.
House Bill 270, Acts 1957, p. 353, became effective
May 6, 1957. House Bill 268, Acts 1957, p. 790, became effec-
tive May 31, 1957. House Bill go, the latter Bill, has a
provision repealing only prior provisions in conflict with it.
Therefore, under well settled rules, unless there is a con-
flict with some provision of House Bill 268, both may stand
as written and both given full effect. As the two Bills
were passed at the ssme Session of the Legislature and bear
on the same subject, we should construe them in par1 materia
and treat them as in effect one Bill. The Supreme Court, in
the case of State v..Dyer, 145 Tex. 586, 200 S.W. 2d 813,
states the rule clearly In this language:
"The rule most helpful in the determl-
nation of the question presented In this
case, is thus expressed~in a very early
decision: 'These statutes, being in pari
materia, and relating to the same subject,
are to be taken together and so construed,
in reference to each other, as that, if
practicable, effect may be given to the
entire provisions of each. * * * The
object of the rule is to ,ascertain and
carry into effect the intention of the
Legislature, and it proceeds upon the
Hon. Zollie Steakley Page 3 Opinion No. ww-260
supposition that the several statutes
relating to one subject were governed by
one spirit and policy, and were intended
to be consistent and harmonious In their
several parts and provisions.’ Neil1 v.
Keese, 5 Tex. 23, 32, 33, 51 Am. Dec. 746.
It applies with peculiar force to
Acts passed at the same session. McGrady
v. Terrell, 98 Tex. 427 430-431, 84 S.W.
641. As to such Acts, It has often been
held that the aourt, in seeking the legis-
lative intent, will read them together as
if they were embraced in one Act."
In Austin.v..G.C. &S.F.R.R. Co., 45 Tex. 234,
266 (1876), two acts amending a prior enactment had been
pass#ed atthe same session of the Legislature. Each
men ldatory act excepted certain counties, but the excep-
tions in each act included counties not listed in the
other. The court held that the acts were not in conflict,
stating:
"Under the general rule of statutory
construction, laws relating to the same
subject, enacted during the same session
of the Legislature, are to be construed
together, and are ordinarily to be taken
as parts of the same act. . . .Un-
questionably these acts must be construed
together, and effect given to their entire
provisions, if they are not in direct
conflict. . . . But it cannot be said,
because the exceptions in the one are
broader and more enlarged than in the
other, that there is any such conflict
between them."
The two Bills vary only slightly. House Bill '270
contains the phrase "or other area within the State" which
Is not present in House Bill 268. Paraphrasing the language
in the Austin case, it cannot be said, because the exemption
in House 270 is broader than In House Bill 268, that
there is a direct conflict between them. Both Bills are on
the same subject, were passed at the same session of the
Legislature, and should be construed together and both
given effect unless there Is a conflict, and we see none.
Hon. Zollie Steakley Page 4 Opinion No. WW-260
S U M,M A RY
There is no oonfllct between House Bill ZO
amending Article 7094 of Vernon's Civil
Statutes and House Bill 268 amending the
ssme Artlole. These two Bills are on the
same subject and were passed at the ssme
session of the Legislature, and when oon-
strued together are not in oonfllot and
both should be given full effect as one
law.
Very truly yours
WILL WILSON
LPL/fb
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
George P. Blackburn, Chairman
Mary Kate Wall
W. R. Hemphill
Roger Daily
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: James N. Ludlum