OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

-a- 

-aHonorable Len d. Snlth, Chairman 

Reilroed Codsslon of Texas 

NlatLIl, Texas 

Deer sir: 

This Is In enswe 

in regard to ,wtiole 6479, 

Statutes or nmis. your Is 

vnder date or J 

ert 68 tollovJs: 

the rronorable 

trtktion of 

Revised Civil 

unded to hln 

ioeble on a oerroad provides POT 

und on ona day and 

e fulfill the tiinlmm requirements, 

mice, of Subdivision 2 of ~rtiole 

-In the opinion above mentioned, the.kttorney 

Caneral ruled *that the wwds *at least one train 

e dep, a6 used in Subdivision 2 of krtiale 6479, 

meag None train a day each way.“( 

*. . ., we have before us a schedule appliceble on a railroad branah line whloh provides iOr 

northbound passenger aertioo over the entire branoh 
I-Ion. Lou A, Smith; Chairman, page 2 

on Mondays, Kednesdays and~yridays, and southbound passenger service over the entire ‘branoh 

on TEesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays1 and which 

does not provide for any southbound passeqer 

service on Mondays, Redneedays and Fridays, or. 

any northbound passenger service on Tuesdays, 

Thursdays and Saturdays. 

‘Your opinion is requested as to whether 

peskenger service so provided Is suffioient to 

aeet the minimum requIre%ents of atlale 6479 

of the Revised Civil Statutes, &a avended.” 

The statute involved In this question is Section 2 of &tIols 

6479, which reed8 as followsr 

*It shall be the duty of the cozmission to 

6ee thst upon each railroads In this State carrying passengers roti hire thcru shell be run at 

.leest one traIn,each day, Sundays exoepted,~$.on 

which passengers stall be hauled; pmvided, however, the Comission my, ti its discretion, 

upon application filed and after notice ahd hearing, relax such requirement aa to any reilrozld, 

nor part, portion or brsnoh thereof, when In its 

opinion, publio oonvanienou perfits of such relaxation, nnd shall relax such roquirment when 

it appears upon such hearing that tha ruming of 

one train each day, Smdays exoapted, is not 

necessary In the rendition ol adequate stirvice to 

the publla, OP that on any railroad, or part, or 

portion or branch thereof, passenger service as 

frequent as one traiil aaah day, Sundays exaepted, 

with the passeu;.;sr traffic OPllared and reasonably 

to be expected, does rot and will not say the 

cost of suah sarvioe plus a reasonable return a?- 

on the property ezploynd In the rendition of auoh 

servioe; and Co~~A.ssIon shall LPurt,!:er zegiilrlute 

passenger train service so as to rw~uira i;t?e 

stoppaa,;e. of. suoh trains, for a time mfficient to 

receive and let orf pzsseneors, at such St&Ions 

8s my be desimzted by the COZIdSSiOn; tird It 

nny further prescribe the nuder of trr:En so 

operated ezch day which shall be re~>ircd to Stop 

at County seat stations; and if ouch railroad, 

or braaah of same shall operete a g&olIua or 

electric motor car over Its line, carryI.nS pasaengers Por hire In this State, such motor Car 

. . ..( -.,;..:‘>:.;.: 
ffon, Len A+ smith, Chaiman,.psge 3 

shall be deemed a train Hithin the moanIn&of 

this Article and shall be subjeot to and included within the provisions hereof.” 

ours) 

(UhdersoorIng 

The question we are asked to deoide Is whether the 

phrase net least one train each dapn means only one train a 

day One w&y or means om truin a day eeoh way. 

fn 1931, when Attorney Oeneral hllredcs opinion 

(by Assistaut iLlbert Rooper, January 17, 19X), to :&Ich you 

p6fer, was written, the statute in qwstion read us follows; 

*Tt shall be the duty of the CosmIssioners 

to see that, upon every Railroad branch of sam, 

aarry!.5g passeAngera for hire in this State, shall 

be run at least one train e day, Sundays excepted, 

upon whioh passeh+;urs shall be hauled, and the 

Co&sIoners shell 03ve no ‘power to relax this 

P 

rovislon; provided, however,. the ComlsB1on my, 

n its discretion, relax such requir=ent as to 

any reilrosl in this State less than fifty tiles 

in length and the gross annual passengai revoaue8 

-of which ere lessthan $SSOO.COl end said Coanission shall further re&te passenger train sbrdoe to stop for R tI.me sllffioient to receive and 

let off pcsmngora at such stations es xay be 

desI@ated by the Comla~loner; provide6 that 

So-z trains saoh way, carry- gaosen@rs for 

hire, S.f so !xmy em run dnily, Sundays excogtod, 

be required to stag as aforesaid at all oouuty 

seat stations J ad If ouch rtiI.lroad or brtrrroh of 

tmne shall operate a gasolIn& or .olectrIo notor 

ear over Its line carrying passengers f.>r hIro 

in this State, suoh motor oar shall be deewd~ R 

train -wIthIn the meaning of this Article and 

shall be subject to and included within the requlrenants the.t at least be ruu every day, Sundays excepted, s.nd the requiremnt r;ndo by the 

ComuIesIoaers as to stoppii~g for a the StdTIoient to receive and-let off gassungers at dasIgneted stations ,w 

&torneg Oeneral iillsedgs opinion held that the worda *at 

least one train a day” meant omz train a drig eaoh Way; and 

erter oiting sev6ral authorities on statutory construction, 

the opinion contained language as follows; 

i 

HOIon. LOn A. %ith, ChaIrman, page 6 

a railroad Op8rathg o&Such a Sohedale prould 

be running a train only every other day, and in 

violation of,.;rtl~le 6479, '5s wall as irtlalo 

6357. Treating the two Statutes prospect1vel.y 

and 6ivih6 efl'eot to bath, railroads are reaulrod 

by their ter;ns to operate a trsln a day oath way 

la order thtiit all passengers and i'roight *my be 

6oeomodated. That these two Articles Should be 

construad toc.e$her is Supported by the oaS% of 

Raikoad Co~vnission of 'Iex4s, et al vs. Galveston, 

H. ES. A. Ry. Coi, lJ.2 9. 71. 345, 349.' 

ae are frank to say that if tha question were an 

open one we might reach a different con~oluslon from that 

stated in :,ttornoy Ceceral Allred* opinion, but in view ot 

that opinion aud what has transpired since it was written 

.we do not feel inclined to ~0vcrruJ.e .it.~ 

We are advised that the Rallroad Co;cmission oi 

Texas has followed that opinion, that it has beeh uniformly 

acquiesced in by the railroad compahles, and that it has 

been considered the law by all persons comemcd, cantlnuously since it has been written. Tn.ths GaSe of ~hoorlpan v. 

Terrell, Co;lptroller, 109 Ter. 173, 202 3, W. 727, the supreme Court of Tcras said: 

~a#ain, aouhd publio policy recjulras .tha 

sol&g of xaere doubtn in Savor of ths coxmruotion put upon laws by the departments and ofSiuers charged with their administration, . . .- 

It will be notl$aU that the Statute in question 

now reads dlXerently, partioularly ln the last part of the 

paragraph, fron the way it read in lF31 when jdttorhey General ;rllred*s opinion was writ&e&. Yhe chon6e WAS SLsdo in 

1933 by Senate sill 331, Gh, 111, 43rd Legislature. The 

part Y;B are concerned with waS not ohahicged except that the 

words, "at least one Grain u.da~~* were chcz;cd to *at least 

one train each day", but we believe that ehnn::9 1s immaterial. 

The material chances viere in,the latter part of the paragraph 

after the word *provided." 

Wa doue to this conclusion: Pihen the Legislature 

amended this,statute In 1933 azI did not .ztorilly cbunse 

the part of tho Statute providln.~ for ut loast oze train a 

day, Mioh provision had beea previously construed by the 
Han* Len A. smith, chairman, gage 6 

Attorney Gsneral as meaning one train R day eaoh way and 

enforced to that offoot, we believe the Legislature intandad for that oonstruction to continue to be the law. III the 

aase of oxen vb Gates, 119 TSX. 76, 24 3. ‘ri’. (2d) Sal, the 

commission of LA~peab said: 

“It ~ziust b; presumed that, v&u the ~a&&- 

turo psoed the last-nszed statute, it knew the 

commissioner of the land office had intersrated 

art1010 5526 as not requ:rm the applicant ior 

rsinstatemcnt to pay aaorued interest to ths date 

OS reinstatement, but only that which was due 

under the terms of the contract which was b&in6 

reinstated. If the Legislat’ze, by the psxzzgiie 

of article 5%lb, cozt:tglated a ohan6e Prom the 

method in force by the land offloe, it would no 

doubt have made plain its purpose to change the 

rule ot oonstruot~on then be% 4pplied. Not 

h4ting a030 SO, it mit bo pra3miad tkt th0 

.lox-continued cons truotion .of that department 

MB intended to be continued under the provk:ons 

OS, the later law.* 

the ease of kOXallum t. ~ssoaiatod Z?:etcil Credit Xen, 26 

w. (2d) Il.5 {reversed on other grounds) the Court of Civil 

- .~. 

appeaui et ~ustxn sala: 

*Tn the recent case of Odeikv. Gates (Tex. 

coti. Apg.) 24 s. w, (Zd) ?181, it ~4s held that 

St would be presusmd, aCsent sy~iffc largua6e 

in an act azendlrg a doubtful statute vM.ch a 

&p.rtmont. of tk. ,ststs government had construBd 

in a certain man%ar for 25 years, to be t&e fntention of the Legislature to conttnue the &Fartmental constructj.on of the statute.* 

yt Ls our opinion, snd you =re so advised, that you 

should coztlnue to follow Attorney General .Ured~s opinion 

to the elfsot *h&t tka phrase in irticla 6478, R.C.S., saying 

*at least one train satoh day* means one train a day euch way, 

yours very txulg 

.