March 21. 1975
The Honorable Bob Armstrong Opinion No. H-560
Commissioner
General Land Office Re: Effect of Open Records
Austin, Texas Act on fees charged by the
General Land Office.
Dear Commissioner Armstrong:
You have requested our opinion regarding the ,fees which the
General Land Office may charge for copies of records, and in particular,
the possible conflict between articl~e 3918, V. T. C. S., and section 9 of
article 6252-17a. V. T. C. S., the Open Records Act.
Article 3918 prescribes a schedule of fees which the Commis-
sioner of the General Land Office is authorized and required to charge
for various services. These fees are categorized. in the statute as
“Filing Fees, ” “Preparation of Certificate of Fact, ” “Certified
Pbotostatic Copies, ” ‘!Maps, ” “Maps and Sketches, ” “Spanish Transla-
tions, ” and “Patent and Deed of Acquittance Fees. ”
Article 6252-17a, the Open Records Act provides, in section 9:
(a) The cost to any person requesting noncertified
photographic reproductions of public records
comprised of pages up to legal size shall not be
excessive. The State Board of Control shall from
time to time determine the actual.cost of standard
size reproductions and shall ~periodically publish
these cost figures for use by agencies in determin-
ing charges to be made pursuant to this Act.
p. 2521
The Honorable Bob Armstrong page 2 (H-560)
(b) Charges made for access to public records corn-
prised in any form other than up to standard sized
pages or in computer record banks, microfilm’records,
or other similar record keeping systems, shall be
set upon consultation between the custodian of the
records and the State Board of Control, giving due
consideration to the expenses involved in providing the
public records making every effort to match the
charges with the actual cost of providing the records.
(Emphasis added)
(c) It shall be the policy of all governmental bodies’to ;
provide suitable copies of all public records within a
reasonable period of time after the date copies were
requested. Every governmental body is hereby instructed
to make reasonably efficient use of each:page of public
records so as not to cause excessive costs for the
resproduction of public records.
(d) ,The charges for copies made in the district clerk’s
office and the county clerk’s office shall be as other-
. wise provided by law.
. . . .
(f) The charges for c cpies made by the various
municipal court clerks of the various cities and
towns bf this state shall be as otherwise provided
by ~ordinance.
You ask whether the fee schedules listed in article 3918 are superseded
by section 9 of article 6252-17a, so that the relevant fees must now be
set by the State Board of Control.
The Open Records Act neither expressly.repeals nor specifically
alludes to article 3918. In the absence of an express declaration, an act
should not be regarded as repealed unless repeal can be inferred from the
later statute. Burkhart v. Braeos River Harbor Nav. Dist., 42 S. W. 2d
96 (Tex. Civ. App. --Galveston 1931 no writ); Miller v. Calvert, 418 S. W.
2d 869 (Tex. Civ. App. --Austin 1967 no writ).
p. 2522
The Honorable Bob Armstrong page 3 (H-560)
Initially, we observe that the Open Records Act clearly does
not repeal those schedules of article 3918 styled “Filing Fees, ” “Certified
Photostatic Copies, ” “Preparation of Certificate of Fact, ” “Spanish
Translations, ” and “Patent and Deed of Acquittance Fees, ‘I These
services embrace more than providing uncertified copies of, or access
to, public records. As to them, clearly, the fee schedules of article
3918 are not superseded by article 6252-17a.
Nor do we believe theremaixiingarticle 3918 schedules, “Maps”
and “Maps and Sketches, ” or the “examination of records” provision,
were repealed or superseded by article 6252-17a, V. T. C. S. The
“cost” provisions of the Open Records Act are of general applicability,
designed to guide agencies where no specific statutory guide exists.
Article 3918, V. T. C. S. is a specific statute governing the charges to
be rnade~ for specific records which were already open to the public
prior to the passage of article 6252-17a. In 53 Texas Jurisprudence,
Statutes, $110, it is said upon excellent authority:
The enactment of a general law does not ordinarily
operate as a,repeal of a particular or special law, by
implication, though both relate, to the same subject
matter. On the contrary, both statutes are permitted
to stand, and the general law is applicable to, all
cases not embraced by the specific act. In other
words, the particular act is construed as constituting
an ‘exception to the general law. This is a settled
rule of construction, based on the presumption that
a specific statute evidences the intention of the legis-
lature more clearly than a general one, and therefore~
should control.
A special act is repealed by subsequent legisla-~
tion that contains an express repealing clause or that
otherwise manifests the intention of the legislature to
repeal it. Thus where such a construction is necessary
in order to give any meaning to its words, a general act
may be construed as repealing more particular and
specific provisions of an earlier act.
p. 2523
The Honorable-Bob Armstrong page 4 .(H-560)
We think these principles apply to the circumstances you have
asked about and that article 3918, V. T. C. S., continues to control the
particular matters to which it is addressed. See also
-- 53 Tex. Jur.
2d, Statutes $161.
SUMMARY
The fee schedule in article 3918, V. T. C. S.,
for services provided by the General Land Office
has not been repealed by section 9 of article 6252-17a,
the Open Records Act.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
*is tie
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman :
Opinion Committee
lg
p. 2524
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion