Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

431 OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN Department or r..grioulture Austin, Texas Gentlemen! of bread made by uraoturer when eotlvely shall not ourth ounoe per lolsnoy valid? ror an opinion 0r this Dspart- fan has been reosived. r letterTea follows: utxler Artlole 719 or the Psnal Code "Seotlon 16 0r Ordlnanoe ITO. 2699 0r the city or Dallas, in gresorlblng toleranos f%r loaves of bread, reads In part as followe: 432 Department of Agrloulture, Page 2 n*The variation and toleranae allowed in the weight of bread shall not exoeed one (1) ounoe per pound, over or under, on eaoh individual loaf, within eald 24 hour period; and the varlatilon and toleranoe allowed on 10 loaves of bread. made bv the same manufacturer when we1 had oolleotively”, *In view of the ract that the State Law pm- vldes that the tolerance shall not exoeed one ounoe per pound over or under, will you please advise whe- ther or not that portion of the Dallas City Ordlnanoe whloh provides that the average toleranoe on 10 or more loavea of bread made by the same msnufaoturer shall not exoeed one-fourtdounoe per pound in de- flolenoy is a valid ordlnanoe?* RuLe 5, Artlole 719,, Vernonrr, Annotated Penal Code, reads as followsr “Rule 5. Weight oi Bread. Bread to be sold by the loaf made by bakers engaged in the business of wholesaling and retailing bread, shall be mold based upon any of the following standards of orsight and no other, namely: a loaf weighing one pound or 16 ounces, a Zoaf weighing 24 ounoea or a pound and a half, and loaves weighing two pounds or 52 ounaes, and loaves welghlng 3 pounds or some other multlpla of one pound or 16 ounoes. These shall be EMrstandards or weight for bread to be sold by the . Variations or, tolerenoe shall not exoeed one ounce per pound, oviir or under, the said standard within a period or 24 hours arter baking.” Section la or Ordlnanoe No. 2769 or the Qltg or Del- la&, in deaoriblng tolerance for loaves a? bread, reads as fol- lawa I “It shall be unlawful for any person by Umeolr or by his employee or agent, or as the employee or agent of’ another, to manufacture for #ale, cell, of- fer or expose for sale any bread otherwise then by the rollowlng units of weight! One (1) pound net, one and oneghalf (lb) pound net, of\ multiples ol,one (1) pound net. When twin or multiple~loaves are baked, the weights speolfied in this ordlnenoe shalL apply .- 43 Department of Agrioulture, Page 3 to each unit or the twin or multiple k0ar. when bread la ellaed priop to aala, t% shall be moped and the weights epeoifiad ln this ordlnanoe shall a:,ply to aaah paokape. %a weight speoified in thla Seotion ahall mean net we1 ht not more than 24 hours after baking. All broad of? ered or exposed for sale or ln the pro- oaea of delivery in the City of Dallas ahall for the purposea or this Seotfon, be deemad prima iaoia ta have been bakad wlthln 24 houra, unless auoh bread la marked~, daalgnated or segregated as ‘atale braad.’ *The variation and toleranoo allowed fn the ralght OS bread ehall not uooed one (1) ‘ounoe par ound over or under, on eaoh individual loaf, with- f n aa i d 24 hour period; and the variation and teler- anoe allowed on 10 loaves of bread, made by the mama manufaaturer when wei, ed ~ollectlvelp, ahall not exoeed one-fourth (1 P4) ounoe per pound in ddiotenoy. “The weights met out in this aeotion shall not apply to oraokers, p%Haole blsoults, bunm, rolls or loavae OS fanay broad we&$&g leas than one-?ourth (l/4) pound avotrdupoie. *All bakery prodwts mpged prior to aale, rhell hava the net weight plainly and aonrplouously narked on thr outeide of eaoh paokage. “Any pereon tiol.atlnu any of tho previsiona oi tMs Seotlon of this Ord%nanoe, ahall be deemed guilty of a aimdemeanor and rhall be fined not leoa than #25.00 nor mOre than $200.00.* Here we have the question as to tho validity of a portion of a oLty ordfmnoe ahleh 1s in eertsln partiaularm &nllar to the State Law, and makes additionaL requframentm other than those mentioned In the State law. ~al5 5 0r ml- sib 719, sugra, pmolfIa8 that Variation or toleranae ahall, not erased one ounce per pound over QE under tha said stand- ard within a period of 24 hours aster baking”, and the above quotsd olty ordlnanoe provldas that -the varlatlon and tiler- anoa allowed in weight or bread ahall not exaeed one ounoe per ?ound over or under, on aaeh individual loaf, within eaid 24 Department of Agfioulture, Page 4 hour period; and the variation or toleranoe anowed on ten loaves of bresd, made by the same manufaoturer, when weighed oolleotlvely, shall not exoeed one-fourth ounoe per pound in def iolenoy.n It will be noted that in the State etatute there is no differenoe in the variations or toleranoe when aoneid- ering one loaf or any number of loaves oolleotivelg, ‘but under the city ordinanae for one loaf the variation or tolerance la the same as provided by the State statute; however, when ten loaves of bread, made by the same manufaoturer, are weighed colleotivelg then the variation or toleranoe shall not exoeed one-fourth ounoe per pound in deffcienoy. Thua imposing adai- tional requirementa upon the baker or manufaoturer when ten loaves are weighed oolleotively and deoreasing the variation or toleranoe to an amount considerably less than that would be permitted should the loaves be weighed separately. It la stated in the oase Rx Parte Brewer, 15 S. W. 1068, among other things, that “there la no inhibition in the Constitution or the laws of this State whioh will grevent the oity from dealing with whioh the State laws do not deal where the polioe power is oonf’erred upon the city . . .v we quote from the aitg of Houston Y. Riohter, et al, 157 s. w. 189, as roil0~: Vhe terms of the ordinance of the oity have been hssetof’ore set out. The effeot of this provf- sion is to prohibit, under penalty of fine, any plumber, who has received his lioense from the Board of Examiners under the provleione of the statutea, ffom exercising the privileges given him by the stat- utes unless he further givea the bond provided by the ordinanoe and reoeivee a further lloenae from the oftp of Houston, issued by the City Rngineer . . . We think it is too olear for argument that the ordin- anoe in question is ineonaistent with the statute re- ferred to .” In the ease of Massaohusetts Bonding & Insurance Com- pany et al v. MoHay, 10 8. W. (8d) 770, at page 771: “In supplementary brief, appellants urge aa fundamental error that the o,rdinanoe in question, re- quiring plumbera to exeoute a $3,000 bond in order to prooure lloense to oarry on their business in the City of Eallas 1s unoonstitutional and void and there- Department of Agrioulture, Page 5 ?ore aaid bond executed pursuant thereto ir of no foroe and effeot. Wo think their oontentton in this raspeat is also good. In Artioler 1076 and: 1081, R. S., 19W, the Leglelature ham required that lumbers in aitlea and towns in oltisa of more than ii ,000 lnhabitanta be lloenssd before they 0an opor- ate and has undertaken to regulate the manner in whioh auoh lloanae shall be issued. The atatute it- self does not provide for any bond to bs exaautad as a prerequlalte to the oonduot of a plumber'8 business. The La ielature having ao regulated the mattar by presor f[bin2 fully the manner in whioh the pluhbers should be liosnsed, the City of Dallas had M author- ity to impbsa additional burdQasand requirwnts in thess premiaae . This question ~8 erpret&ly deolded by the Galveston Court or aivil Appeals, in Rouston v. Xiohter, 147 8. W. lS9. Thts holding was again expressly reoognieed in Xydias AmuaeunentCompany V. aity of Rouston, (Tox. air. APP.) 185 9. w. u6,. i3.a al80 Paohe Y. RI&t (Tox. Dir. Apl,.) , 293 2. W. 689. And this gsnera.l law of the Stats a plier to thbe Oity of Dallas, irreapeotive of the prov f sions of apeoial ahartsr. Davis Y. Hollaran (Tsx. ait. App.) MS S. W. 11; Pa0he v. night, supre. Said ordinanoe imposing additional burdew to thoae required by the State law upon plumbers within that 010~ was inoonai8tent with, and in oonfllat with, the State law and was thereiore void. It ?ollowo then that said bond given pursuant to auoh ordinanos wan likewias void.P1 Xydlae Amusament Company v. aity of Roustan, 185 8. w. 145, at page 420: “The true rule is where the State law speaks, ths oity ordinanae must be silent: where the State law im silent, the olty must apeak."' See also the oaaea of Mantel v. State 117 3. W. 855 and Robinson v. City of Galveston, 111 9. w. lOi We oonolude, thereiore, that the portion of . . the alty Ordinanoe of Dallas above quotad with rererenoe to she raria- tlon an@ tolerance allowed on ten loaves of bread, made by the same manufaoturer when weighed oollsotively, shall not exoeed one-fourth ounoe per pound in de?iolenoy, invades the field Depart!!nt of kgriOUltUr6, page 6 of le&slatlon already occupied by the Legislature of Texas. T:;edo not believe that the requirements of the above mention& -ord!nanoe enlarges upon or adds to the requirements of the stste statute in apeoi?io matters pertaining to the ;roteotlon o? the publlo. Xhloh, generally speaking, mnnioipal oorpora- tlons have the right and the police power to safeguard the health, ooniort o? their olt:zens by such reasonable repula- tlona as are neoeasary for that purpose. The polloe power authorizes only euoh measurea as are reasonable; to be valid aa an exerolee of this power, an ordlnanoe must be reasonable in fte operation upon the person to whom it e??eotsand must not be unduly oppreesive. That is, it muat agpenr that the means adopt.ed are reaaonably neoessary and appropriate for tho accomplishments of the legitimate objeot falling within tho %ominion of the golice power. Tex. Jur. Vol. 30, pp. 120, 121. Under the Beoisiona of the oourte o? Texas, set out above, it is our opinion that the portion o? the abolre mentioned city ordlnanoe whloh reada that *the variation and toloranoe allowed on ten loaves of bread, made by the same manufaoturer, when weighed oolleotIvely, shall not exesed one-rourth ounoe per pound in dePIolenoy* Ia alearly invalid. Trustin that the foregoing iully answers your In- quiry, we are Your0 very truly ATTORNEY 0sTERA.LQB TEXAS Ardell Williama Aarietant A'J;':BBB