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: