Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN GROVERSELLERS ATTORNEY GENERAL fioaoribleT. U. Trlmbl~ Flret ;rrslstant Stat. iiuparintendentof Publio fn8trUOtlOn hu;t in, Teiar Thirty-ninth fauielatulri, aatually 1A faot repeal.. the exemption olauae.ai,: ffouw ail1 No. 586, TMrty- second:LegielatureP (Great- in6 lla IAdOpOAdeAt SO&O01 Di8trlot) .~. me era in rweipt oi your letter or recent dste, read- iag ~3 r0110w8: We would llkn to call your attsntloa to H. 9. xo. 5593, irota, oi the 32nd Lagislntura, 1911, meatlog the Sriggr IA4epeAdcat Soho District in Uurnet County, aa vmll a8 to S. B. Xo. 227, Aots of tim 39th Legislature, 1923, whioh undertook to repeal a portion or 9, B. NO. !%5 with rorareAO0 to exeq- tion rr0i4 cousty supervision. ~59x1cotmthitutlon, ..rtlolr3, Lh3otlon 57, re- ierring to looal bills, providea thut no local bill 14th certain eraeptione may be fntroduoed without having flret been pQbllshed for thirty days, and thut such publictition sust acompany the local bill in the Legislature. “Please advise us whether or not 3. B. No. 227, :iCtS ot the 39th Legislature, 1925, actually in fact lepeoledthe exemption clause of H. B. Xo. 585, .;cts of the 32nd Legislature, 1911.” HoAOrlibleT. ;b. Trimble, page 2 IA the year 1925, Seation 5 of titicle 7 authorized the Legisl&ure to oreute school dlatriote by speoial law, without the notice required by article 3, SeOtiOA 56. See Powell Y. Charoo IAdepeAaent ~abool Xstrict, 203, 9. i'i.1178. Seotion 3 of arti- ole 7 was amended at the November election 1926, since whioh tine the Legislature nsy create sohool distrlcteby geAbrk3.l lsWs.OAly. You are advised, thererore, that Senate Bill No.:'227, Hots of the 39th Legislature, whioh was passed prior to t* 1926 amend-at is OOAstitUtioAal eAd repealed the eXemptioA clauee Or House Bill 585, AQte ot the 32Ad Legislature, 1911. Yours very truly irasistant CFG:EFP