OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVER SELLERS
ATTORNEYGENER*L
Hon. Lon Alsup
Sxecutive Searetary-Dire&or
state Commission for the Blind
Land Off1 ce Building
Austin, Texas
Dear lvlr. Alsup:
ijpinlon No. O-677
Re: Determinatio
sideration to your
letter of raaent date rap nion of this Depart-
ment upon the captioned au uote in part from your
letter as roiiows:
Ion of the Forty-
nourrent Resolution
resolution reads as hollows:
that the Housa of Repreesnta-
Legislature of the State of
ring, that the Superlhtendent
Grounds (or the Board of Control)
sted to permit Oscar Raines, who
zen of Texas, to ereot, maintain and operate
and oigar stand in the lobby on ~the ground
ate Land Offloe Building, locatel in Austin,
sion of the stand to be under the Board of
"Please advise this department if the reeolu-
tion gives to Mr. Raines a vested property right. Also
advise if either the wife or Xr. Ralnes or the person
who is now operating this stand has the authority to
convey to another individual the right to operate a
oonfectlonery and cigar stand in the Land Offioe Building."
'791
Hon. Lon Alsup, page 2
There is a marked distinotlon between a law
and a reaolutloo. The Court, in the oase of Oonley Y. Texae
Division of U. D. of the Confederaoy, 164 S. N. 24, writ of
error denied, vary ably stated this differmae a8 follows:
“The chief dlstinetlon between a resolution
and a law seems to be that the former 1s used whenever
the leglslatlve body paeaing it wishes to merely express
an opinion as to some given matter or thing, and la only
to have a temportry effeot on euoh particular thing;
while by the latter It 1s intended to permanently dlreot
and control matters ap~plylng to persons or things in
general. *
!Ye are of the opinion that the resolution
under oonslderatlon was merely an expression of the Leglsla-
ture in the form of a request of the Board of Control to
permit one Oeoar Ralnes to ereot, maintain and operate a
oonreotlonery and cigar stand in the State Land Offioe
Building; and that this expression waa merely intended to
hare a tmporary etfeot, and was oertaluly not bestowing
upon Oaoar Relnes a rested property rfght in this apeoa,
even if the latter was pGrmisalble under our law.
Our contention 1s further aubetantiated by the
faot that the reaolutlon provides that the auperriai,on of the
stand 1s to be under the Board of Control, whitohLiie’llri keeping
with the pol.lcy of this State of hevlng the oharge en& oontrol
of all public buildings under the Board of Control. See
Article 665, R.C.S. In other words, the Leglsleturs, by the
resolution, reoognlzed and left tha oontr.ol end charge of
the State Land Offioe Building in the hands of i& fji~~.:i of
ContCol, and merely requeated the Board to permit Oeoer
Helnes to use a oertaln apaoe therein.
In view of thG foregoing, we anewer your two
questions in the negative.
AseistaL,
/,izzkL
L