Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorable L. h. Woods State SuperintenCtent Dcpartaent of Education Austi& Texas Dear Mr. i?oods~ te whether or not e 6F-a fherclbf eeary to put3 8mB.IfO. I¶& eenotmfriol@Mil7#Tex- dltbelmemledlneueha 5. 8. 60. 117, as stated ln the b&l& ie o mnendment of Article 2866 of the Revised Citil Statutes of Pexae. The first paragraph thereof;Seidentiml to Article 2665. The seoond paragaph~reade'hs follors~ SIn arriving at the f5ount to be ap- portioned, the Mate Board of RduGstiOn Hon. L. B. ~p-il \SC~O(LS, 14, ma90 Page 2 shall &eterdze the cost of operating schools far a six (6) months period, taking into wn- sideration the estir;late of current costs, in- cluding the cast of general control, instruct- ion, operation, ncrintenance,fixed charges, auxiliary agencies, and interest on short term loans; all itoms to be calculated on a minimum p~gram of education set up by the State Board. When such ~portioment per pupil has been fix- a same &all be certified by the secretary of the fioard and filed with the Equalization Tax Board to be used by the Tax Board in fixing the rate of State ad valorem taxee for eohool pnr- posesthatrillpreride slliiialent.Sunda to asintsin the public oehool8 eS %x80 for 8 per- ked or mot less than sir (6)ronths~ TherboMp~agrephdlWG&sthe StateBaardof Bdnoa- tion to determine anmall the per aaplta apportlomemt OS thearallsble sohoolfundrltJmutllmlktiena~ to mouat. Artidle 1045 Rwked CWil Ststates, llpB6,& smeuded b7 l@3& Acts 426 Le@alature, 'Mound oOrle(lSertioo,page 22, Chspter8% provlde6iinpartr loie& eaUmlatlng the rate te be ool- leafed for publio ?ree who01 purpoaee~ maib Boanl shal1toke into eoneiderotlenthema- her oi childmu in the state with&a the aohelae~ tlo age, to be deterrained .fremthe m8Bt Pemnt offlaW aohool eeumq aud rdmllflxa rote thatr3ll7leldaadprodaoefor smhiisoal 7- sweutef3uaudoue-half (~70ao)Bo~lU~ per eaplk for all the ehlldron tith%n the oah@laotloage, 68 shorn br 8al.ds8hol8atlo aemmm protided, therrte soSiredfOr~ea7 7-a Ll lnwer emeed the rate ?$xedb71u,m Atterney Oenerol Wlllma BoGraw, in a letter OpiniolL addroswd t&the Iionorahl6 Ben 0. Tlmlnger, President of the State Board of Jfducatioq,under date Of Ua7 1% 392% bon- etrued this part ot'Artlole 91.349so ae not to pmhiblt the State Bosrd of Bduoation from maMng 8 suppleakentd 8ppropria- tion.rhich would bring the total per mplta apportiollneatfir the year in exceos of $17.60, *if In the seuud dleeretlon09 the Board the bslance on hand ia the Avalhble Behool2'und justifies such act3#mm Without passing upon the construction of the $17.60 prcjvisiouof Article 7043 in this opinion, wc believe that it Is not repealed by S. li.NO. 117. As ftatod by Judge Phillips in Cole -- vs. State, 1m S.\i'.lO30: gH&pesls by inplication are never favored. Laws arc enacted with a view to their peman- i?ncc,and it is to be slrpposedthat a purpose on the part of the law-mal;ingbody to abrogate thm nilL bc given uucqulvocal expression. finotdOedg0 of an existing law relating to the ~a.m subject is likewise attributed to the Legislature iu the enactment of a subsequent statute; and when the later act Is 8ileut a8 to the older Xaw, the prennptlon 18 that lt8. contluuedoporatlonrs8 intended, auleec they present a eontraaiotlon a0 poeltive that f&e purpooe to repeal 18 maultest. To arold a state of. oonfllot an lmplled repeal result8 rhetiethe tro act8 are in 8uch opposition.But the antagoElisrquat be abcolate * oo p~Waoanoed that bath asuut -otslt&* The am10 rdle of 8tatutory oonstm~tion 18 la&d down In the followlug quotation from the oplnlon 0.fthe Taae ma- - prePleCourt by Gaines, C. JO la Wddls ~8. Terre& AlO &Ws *The repefdllng 8imtion of the *ot~l~et olted la as rolloro$ 'All law ondpartooi law8 irrUMUllOt with the p~~l8iou8 Of t&l8 Ac3tweherebyr6pdaeaBg. Lawa l906p'lUB aa IO& It 28 ale* that there $8 us explW0 repeal8 that Is, the prorl8ton lo question 18 not direoIl pointed out-as expre8sly repsited. But SiNme the &feet Of II, geUerti pmWi8%8n re- p8d~g'00~llot~ lam ednao8 that the Loglo- lature hadlnmlndooaothlng that was fobere- pealed, the ~courts rlll be less inclined againetreaognircingrepu.gUancy luappljtng such stfbtutee, rpile, In dealing rlth those ot the other class, they will, as prlnoiple 8ad authority requires,be astute to find 8omo reasonablemode of reoonalling tha with prlS@:’ statutes so as to avoid a repeal by l@loatlon*. SutherlandBtatr Canst. p.SfW. But wen with such a provl8ion repe'ialing all confilctlnglate, flon. L. A. Woods, 4ril 14, lo30, Page 4 the courts uust find a repugnancy between the old prcvisicn and the new before they can find that the latter repeals the farmer.* , It la our opinion that such repugnancy does not exist between Article 7043 and Se B. No. 117 which would, under 'the above cited rule of statutory construction, lea& tc the conclusion that the latter bill repeals by implication the $17.50 provision of Article 1043. Nor would the +dition of the clause *All lavs and parts of laws in conflict rith the provisions of the dot are hereby repealed* to S. B. 117 haVe Buch an effect under the nils amounoed by tbe Tsxas mpreme-Court In Osddie YE* Terrell, spra. 8.-B*,x0. 317 would h8re to reier specitla8llyto the prwieion intended Co be repealed in order to effeotuate such a purpoee. we adt, ~~V~YSP~ th8t 6tmt.0~ alrrfty totadbe better eemed U, instead of repealing the $17.60 pmrislon In Artlale 704Rbyasaneof aproVision lnan awmdmsnt t0 Article 26g6 (i.e. S.3.Uo.117) It be.dnne by a dire& amend- ment of Article 7043 (as by &R~Lla.llS). 8rB.Xoa.417and Il.8are most properly 00nui4ered as companion birlq deeigrr- ed together to attain 8 oingle purpoee. We vodLd like ta mggest 8 Correotfon fat81 Ba 1171 rhatiulsne 31 tbersof, Wqu8llztbtlonTasBowl~be changed t,aread *AutomafiaTax IWOrrtt* Ne hope.thot the dote OpiniOn rlll help to elar%fy the questlone sulmltted in your letter of AprU l%tb. Yours very truly ATTORXBX,GpJIEsdt OF TESA8 UFlN-BR . APPROVED: