Auwrnv. TEXAS 78711 

October 8, 1975 

The Honorable Lynn Cooksey Opinion No. H- 711 

Criminal District Attorney 

Bowie. County Re: Whether there is an office of 

,412 Texas Boulevard 

” 

District Attorney for the Fifth Judicial 

Texarkana, Texas 75501 District. 

Dear Mr. Cooksey: 

You request our opinion on whether a recent amendment to article 322, 

V.T.C.S., has the effect of creating the office of District Attorney for the Fifth 

Judicial District. This office was expressly abolished as of January 1, 1969, 

o~,n t h Ed creation of the office of Criminal District Attorney for Bowie County 

by section 8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S. 

The amendatory Act in question is Senate Bill No. 574, Acts 1975, 64th 

Leg., ch. 378, p. 983. The title to this Act states only that it is “An Act 

amending Article 322, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, as amended. . . . ” 

Article 322, V. T. C. S., provides for the election of a District Attorney in 

44 numbered judicial districts and for the election of a Criminal District Attorney 

in several named counties. The 1975 amendment republished the entire article 

but the only change consisted of the deletion of the name of Harris County from 

the list of counties which are to elect a Criminal ‘District Attorney. 

The paramount rule in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to 

the intention of the Legislature. Dolan v. Walker, 49 S. W. 2d 695, 697 (Tex. Sup. 

1932). The issue here is whether the Legislature, by re-enacting and publishing 

at length the entire article amended pursuant to the requirements of article 3, 

section 36 of the Texas Constitutionintended to re-establish an office which has 

been expressly abolished by another statute, thereby impliedly repealing section 

8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S. 

The only legislative intent discernible from the title and actual change made 

by the 1.975 amendment of article 322, V. T. C-S., is an intent to delete Harris 

County from the list of counties which are to elect Criminal District Attorneys. 

p. 3062 
The Honorable Lynn Cooksey : page 2 (H-711) 

Repeals by implication are never favored and the Legislature is presumed to know 

of an existing law on the same subject, and when the later act is silent as to the 

older law, in this case section 8 of article 326 k-58, V. T. C. S. , the presumption 

is that its continued operation was intended, unless thev present a contradiction 

so positive that the purpose of repeal is manifest. Cole v. State ex rel Cobolini, 

170 S. W. 1036, 1037 (Tex. Sup. 1914). 

In our opinion, the Legislature did not intend to re-establish the office of 

District Attorney of the Fifth Judicial District by its amendment of article 322 

and the reference to that nonexistent office was inadvertent. See Attorney General 

Opinion H-687( 1975). The express abolition of the office by sxion 8 of article 

326 k~-58, V. T. C. S., is the clearest evidence of the Legislature’s intent on the 

subject and must prevail. 53 Tex. Jur. 2d Statutes $ 161. 

SUMMARY 

There is no office of District Attorney 

in the Fifth Judicial District. 

Xery truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

jad: 

p. 3063