OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
l
nAd,,by ._...
&!.I?!..:.$
I”;”
Honorable ‘3itlnep Lathsn ,/”
Seorstary 0r State
Auprtin, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion Ho. O-m--...~~ I’,
Ret Validity +g atteiiptod altera-
tion or Ho1.&s4UJl 90:~ 105 by
oonourrant rsaolufton. \
Your request for opin$dn, dated Xaroh 31, 1943,
has been reoeired and oonsidersd br thin,~~~departmsnt. ie
quote from your letter or request as roiidpvs:
“House Bill No. IO; wa,‘ pass&by the iiouse
or Bepresentatives of the Yizty-Eighth Leefslature
on February 4, 1943 by a reoord oots of 121 Ayes
and 0 Xayag wa+fpeseed’ by the %;ena++on February
17, 194) by a,,reoord’~.voth or 3O‘Qea and 0 Says;
was approved by the Oovarnar on Flrbruary 18, 1943;
and was riled k&the offfoe of the~eoretary or
State on the 1 th\@y of )%byry, 1943.
,.rTf~,blll o&r>& .& krgenoy olause and
a8 ,Jrbu~$19 nota, iyoeired a surrioient vote tA
plaoe,,.%t’4n ic+adiata~,_s*eot.
/ / “,\
!
’ “The odrtifioate of the Seoratary or ths
s‘ena&+,on the’,anrblled bill which was filed in the
orftqe bf the,‘Sevretary of State erroneously shows
that the bill #as passed in r;he 3mate by a m
YOOBvote which, or oourse, trould preolude the
EfiI rmisttiking imnedfate 9rf60t.
The Senate Journal of Bebruary 17, 1943, at
Page 235, correctly shows the reoord vote by whioh
tho bill -#as passed.
Bonorable 3ldney Latham, Page 2
“Attaohed hereto is copy of a proposed Senate
oonourrent resolution authorizing the Seoretary
of the Senate, In the preaonos or the Seoretary
of State to correot his oertllloate on the en-
rolled bill rllad in ths ofrioe or the Seorrtary
or Stats, and expressing the legislative intent
that said bill be emotive rrom and after ths
date of approval by the Qovernorr
*In the light or the abovcs faota, please ad-
rise this Department upon the rollowing questions:
“1. Is the attaohed Senate oonearrent reso-
lution, if passed by both Bouaee of the Legislature,
sufrlolent to authorlae the oorreotfoa of the oer-
tirioate or the Secretary or the .+wte in the man-
ner therein ‘speolfiad’?
'2. Is the authority of the Zenate concurrent
resolution, If passed, auffioient to authorize the
Seoretary of State to permit the oertirlcate to be
oorreotod?
"3. Is the Senate oonourrent resolution, if
passed, suifloient to render the bill efteotlve
from and after its date of approval by the Qorernor?
"4. Aa to any or the above qKeetions whloh
might be anmered in the negative, please advise
In what manner the intended purposes of the reao-
lntlon oan be aoeoapllahsd.
"5. In the event suoh bill wonid not be rend-
ered erfeotlve by the oooourrent resolution rrom
its date ot approval by the Ooternor, would It be-
OOPDB tdrf30tiue immediately upon the passage or such
rrselution?
“For your full lnrorrnatlon, oopy or tha Senate
Tournal of February 17, 1943, together with photo-
statlo copy of House Ml1 No. 105 are also enolosed.
“. . . .0
The efreot or the error in the oertifloate or the
Seoretary of the Zennte is, 9~s you state, that the provisions
Honorable Sidney Latham, Page 3
or House Bill FJo. 105 do not beoome efieotive until ninety
days arter the adjournment or the ourrent session or the
Party-Zlghth Legislature. Constitution or the State of
Tsxas, Artiole III, Seotlon 39. However, notwithstanding
the delayed efieotive date or thla aot, %~se sill No, 105
beoame law when signed by the Governor and filed with the
Seoretary ot ;tats, end is now a fully valid and subsisting
p0rti0n 0r the laws 0r this Stat*.
The courts oi this State, in oompany with a large
majority or the oourt13 or other jurledlotlons, have wnsist-
etly retused to allow faots extrlnsio to the enrolled bill
to alter or in any way to afteot their interpretation of
suoh bill. In the oese of 2lllson Y. Tenta Mqaor Control
Board, 154 9. !'I. (2d) 322 (writ or error refused), we find
this established rule of oonstruotion stated as follows:
“The Venrolled bill rule’ is applied by the
oourts in Texas, which, as stated in Texas Juris-
prudenoe, Vol. 39, p. 121, is as Pollows: ‘In
the review of enaotments, the Courts of Texas have
s sin00 adopted the so-oalled “enrolled bill
O, to the efreot that a duly authentioated,
approved and enrolled statute imports absolute
verity and is oonolusl~e that the aot was passed
in every respeot aooording to constitutional re-
quirements. In other words, aooordlng to the
settled rule an aot passed by the Legisiature,
signed by the proper oSSloers of eaoh house, ap-
proved by the Goternor, or passed notwithstanding,
and riled fn the orrioe or the Seoretary 0r State,
oonstltutes a oonoluslvo reoord of the passage oS
the aot as enrolled. As egainst this reoord re-
sort may not be had to a proolamatlon of the
Governorl to the terms of the bill as originally
introduced or amendments thereto, to the journal
of the Legislature, nor to par01 evidenoe Sor the
purpose of impeaching or invalidating the law.’
The opinion oS Justice Gain46 in Xlllams v. Taylor,
83 Tex. 667, 19 S. '8. 156, make it unneoeseery,
in this opinion, to 3ho;v rrhy the journals of the
Legislature or :e.nata will . not be rooeivod to im-
peaoh an enrolled bill. ,:ee also King v. Terrell,
Comptroller, ‘Tex. Clv. .%?p., 218 3. Y. 42. The
evidence relied upon by appellants as establishing
that the bill, as passed by the !~ouse of ?epre-
seutatives, *as passed by the ;enste -%ith amendments
Honorable Sidney Latham, ?age 4
depend0 upon entries in the journal8 of the IIouse.
To reoeire such aviden would be contrary to the
‘anrolled bill rule’.”
See to ths saxs sffeot Y%lliams v. Taylor, 83 Tex, 672 19
3. A* 156, Jaokaon v. valker, 121 Tex. 303, 49 3. :T.(f&l)
693, and 21 Faso % 3. YJ. R. Co, v. Foth, 101 Tex. 133, 100
3. 3. 171, 105 S. W. 322. Yhlle this rule has heretofore
bean employed to t&wax% attemptm to invalidate statute8 be-
oausa of alleged fafltuea to ooaforsu with prooedural rs-
qulrsments attendant to their parssage, we feel that it is
squally applloable to attempts to alter the prorlsions of
enrolled bills by shawl% the osourranae of prooedural faota
oontrary to those appearing on such bills.
3lnoe IIouse Bill Ho. 105 is now a -gart of the law
of this State, any ohttnge erreotea therein mat be by my
of ammdnent or repsal, Southern Paalrio Co. v. ‘3. T. Zeadora
& CO,, 129 9. '". 170 (writ 0r error rerussa.), and It is ale-
Dentarp that an existing law Can neither be repealed nor
amended b resolution. Caples v. Cole, 129 Tex. 370, 102
3. :t. (2a3 173.
‘?e are not unaware that in ths oase of ?&via t.
State, 225 S. :.‘, 532 the Court of Crlmiual Appeals held Food
a aonourrent resolution whioh oorrsoted a olerfoal mist&
In a bill previously passed by the Legislature. Nwerer, In
that ease the bill, although passed by the Legislature, had
neither been approved by the Governor no rma wtthout hla
signature. Slaoe the bill had not fina ll y been anaoted Into
hw, a oarreotlon thersor in no way oonstituted an aaen&amt
0r an existing law.
r3ur oonolasion 1s otrengthenoa by another oansiasra-
tion. At the time House 9111 Ho. 105 came before the Governor,
it was apparent from the face of the bill that, if approved,
the bill would take erreot ninety days after the date of ad-
journssnt of the present Legislature. fonaeioably this raoQ
ni~;~;;ll have lnfluenoad the Governor s deois2on to sign .
TC allow a oonourrent resolution to elter the ef-
festive iate of House Bill No. 105 would be to allo-r it to
Comait the Governor to a different bill i’rorn t,hs one which
he sipged and might Well be to COr.lUithL?1 to a bill zhioh he
~ouid not have signed had it hoen ?lacsa before him in its
altered rorm.
- .
KonoPabie Sidney Latham, lag6 5
Gonseqoently, ror the reasons above etated we
answer your first three questions in the negative.
‘52th referenoe to your last two questions, we re-
speotfully suggest that Eouse Bill No. 105 tight be repealed
and ite provisions embodied in adother act and that such sot
would beaome effective inmediately upon its paseage and as-
proval provided It oontained an emsreenoy olause and was
;;;;;a in conformance with the rules governing amergenoy
.
Trusting that the foregoing satiafaotorily auswem
your inquiries, we are
Very truly yours