### XAS

October10, 1949

Hon. Hall If.

Logan OplnlonNo. v-929 Board of Control Austin,Texas 

### Re: Interpretation of Ii. B. 370 

### givingtheBoard of Control authorityover the tenureof superintendents

of ,two State Sohoolsin relitlonto H. B. 1, which transfersthese schoolsto a new indtitutlcmal B,oard.
Dear Sir:
You have.requested a clarification

of the conflictbetweenHouseBill 1, Acts 51stkg., R.S., 1949, ch. 316, 

### p, 588 

### and HouseBill 370, 

### Acts'5lstLeg,,R.S., 1949, oh. 493,p. 914,both billsrelatingto Specie1 Schoolsof the State.

HouseBill 1 transfersthe controlend munagement of the Texas 

### StateHospltals~and SpecialSchools, naming such schoolssnd hospitals,to a new institutional Board. The Legislaturesubsequently enactedHouseBill 370 

### which gives theBoard of Controlauthorityto enter Into contractsof employment with the superintendents of the TexasSchoolfor theDeafand the TexasSchoolfor the Blind. The provisionsof HouseBill 1 aye general in the vestingof controlof the StatebSpeclal Schools in thenew Board. In HouseBill 370,however,theLegislaturehas expresseditselfspecifically, slngllngout two of the institutions as subjectsof legislation, and deal- specifically with the appointmentand tenureof their superintendents.

In this regardthe captionof H. B. 370 

### provides Ln part:

"AnAct 

### deflniugthe qualifications of the Superintendents of the TexaaSchoolfor theBlind and the Texas Schoolfor the Deaf;

. . .kaking aaia 

### Superintendents efployees of the StateBoard of Control;.

. .Hon. Hall H. Logan, page 2 (v-929)

Section 4, 5 and 6 of the Act provides:
"Sec. 4. Good cause, 0 e 0means the commission of any felony or any other offense involvingmoral turpitude or of the failure or refusal of such superintendent to carry out the duties prescribed by the Legislature or by the State Board of Control.
"Sec. 5. On or after September 1, 1949, the State Board of Control is authorized to enter into contract with ans uerson havine: .thequalificationshereinbefore provided,- as the emplovee of the State Board of Control, to act as Superintendent ;of the Texas School for the Blind or the Texas School for the Deaf until such person is removed for good cause as that term is defined in the preceding Section.
"Sec. 6. The fact that the present laws do not fully define the qualifications of said Superintendentsand the further fact that good cause is not denied for removal of such Superintendents, and that such Superintendentsare now declared to be state officers and not employees of the State Board of Control, create an emergency 0 D + " On the effect of a specific act on a prior general act, one authority states:

"This rule of constructionhas found frequent and apt illustrationwhere one of the supposedly conflicting statutes was general in its terms and the other specific. In such a case it is universally held that the specific statute more clearly evidences the intention of the Legislature than the general one, and therefore it will control. In such a case both statutes are permitted to stand- the general one applicable to all cases except the particular one embraced in the specific statutes," Townsend v, Terrell. 118 Tex, 463j 16 S,W.2d I.063(1929), This principle has found application in many Texas caseso State v. The Pxaetorians, 143 Tex. 565; ---Hon. Hall H. Logan, page 3 (V-929)

186 S.W.2d 973 (1945); Scoby v. Sweatt, 28 Tex. 713 (1866); Flowers v. Pecos River Ry C 2b0 (1941 ; Fortinberry v: SkCe 138-F 283':'~ 18 156 S.W.2a

$46 (Tex Corn. App. 1926 * City of Marshall v. itate B& of Marshall, 127 S.W. 1683 (T

. Cl v. APP. Motor Freight Liz: Inc , 1910, error ref.); De Sh 98 S W 26 38~+' v. PP. A 1936). Undei t~~s~%%ities' kouse Bill 3fO as a specific enactment will be treated a; controlling over the general provisions of House Bill 1.

In addition to the above, House Bill 370 must be given effect since it was passed after the Legislature had Passed House Bill 1. The great majority of the courts hold that the last statute or section in point of time will prevail as the last expression of the legislative will. 59 C.J. 999, Statutes, Sec. 596. The Texas Courts have adopted this principle. Fortinberry v. Stat;, ;;y, Townsend v. Terrell, supra Martin v. Sheppard, 1 110, 102 S.W.2d 1036 (19373; 39 Tex. Jur. 139 . Statutes, Sec. 74. Therefore, being later in point of time, the provisions of House Bill 370 control those of the earlier enactment, House Bill 1.

Your letter states that the reference in H. B. 370 to the Board of Control, instead of the new Board,was an inadvertentact. That may well be true. But the language of'

H, B. 370 Is clear and unambiguous in its reference to"the Board of Control." The "Board of Control" is specificallynamed in the caption, in the body of the Act in several places, and in the emergency clause. Faced with those facts, It cannot be said that the Legislature intended to say "The Board for Texas State Hospltals and Special Schools' and not "the Board of Control."

SUMMARY
House Bill 370, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949 ch, 493, p* 914, naming the Board of Control as the appointing authorityand two specific supertindents of State Schools is plain, unambiguous, and specific, For these reasons and because it is later in point of time of enactment, it controls over the general provisionsHon. Ball H. Logan, page 4 (V-929)

of House Bill 1, Acts 51st Leg., R. S. 194g9 ch. 316, p. 588, passed earlier in the session.
Yours very truly, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

TET:gl Assistant

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL