XAS 

October 10, 1949 

Hon. Hall If. Logan Oplnlon No. v-929 

Board of Control 

Aus tin, Texas Re: Interpretation of Ii. B. 370 

giving the Board of Control 

authority over the tenure of 

superintendents of ,two State 

Sohools in relitlon to H. B. 

1, which transfers these 

schools to a new indtitutlcmal B,oard. 

Dear Sir: 

You have.requested a clarification of the conflict between House Bill 1, Acts 51st kg., R.S., 1949, 

ch. 316, p, 588 and House Bill 370, Acts'5lst Leg,, R.S., 

1949, oh. 493, p. 914, both bills relating to Specie1 

Schools of the State. 

House Bill 1 transfers the control end munagement of the Texas State Hospltals~and Special Schools, 

naming such schools snd hospitals, to a new institutional 

Board. The Legislature subsequently enacted House Bill 

370 which gives the Board of Control authority to enter 

Into contracts of employment with the superintendents of 

the Texas School for the Deaf and the Texas School for 

the Blind. The provisions of House Bill 1 aye general 

in the vesting of control of the StatebSpeclal Schools 

in the new Board. In House Bill 370, however, the Legislature has expressed itself specifically, slngllng out 

two of the institutions as subjects of legislation, and 

deal- specifically with the appointment and tenure of 

their superintendents. 

In this regard the caption of H. B. 370 provides Ln part: 

"An Act deflniug the qualifications of 

the Superintendents of the Texaa School for 

the Blind and the Texas School for the Deaf; 

. . . kaking aaia Superintendents efployees 

of the State Board 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 0 means the 

commission of any felony or any other offense involving moral 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: 

.the qualifications hereinbefore 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 

Superintendents and the further fact that good 

cause is not denied for removal of such Superintendents, and that such Superintendents are 

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 construction has found 

frequent and apt illustration where 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 cases o 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 , 

191 0, error ref.); De Sh 

98 S W 26 38~+' 

v. A PP. 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 specifically named 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 provisions 
Hon. 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