## 431

OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN

Department or r..grioulture Austin, Texas Gentlemen!

of bread madeby uraoturer when eotlvely shall not ourth ounoe per lolsnoy valid?

ror an opinion 0r thisDspartfan has been reosived.

r letterTea follows: utxler Artlole 719 or the Psnal Code

"Seotlon 16 0r Ordlnanoe ITO.2699 0r the city or Dallas, in gresorlblng toleranos f%r loaves of bread, reads In part as followe:

## 432

Department of Agrloulture, Page 2

n*Thevariation andtoleranae allowed in the weight of bread shall not exoeed one (1) ounoe per pound, over or under, on eaoh individual loaf, within eald 24hour period; and the varlatilon and toleranoe allowed on 10loaves of bread. madebv the samemanufacturer whenwe1had oolleotively”,

*In 

### view of the ract that the State Lawpmvldes that the tolerance shall not exoeed one ounoe per pound over or under, will you please advise whether or not that portion of the Dallas City Ordlnanoe whloh provides that the average toleranoe on 10or more loavea of bread madeby the samemsnufaoturer shall not exoeed one-fourtdounoe per pound in deflolenoy is avalid ordlnanoe?* RuLe5, Artlole 719,,Vernonrr, Annotated Penal Code, reads as followsr

“Rule 5. Weight oi Bread. Bread to be sold by the loaf 

### madeby bakers engaged in the business of wholesaling andretailing bread, shall be 

### mold based upon any of the following standards of orsight andnoother, namely: a loaf weighing one pound or 16 ounces, a Zoaf weighing 24 ounoea or a pound and ahalf, andloaves weighing two pounds or 52 ounaes, andloaves welghlng 3pounds or someother multlpla of one pound or 16 ounoes. These shall be EMrstandards or weight for bread to be sold by the

. Variations or, tolerenoe shall not exoeed one ounce per pound, oviir **or** under, the said standard within a period or 24 hours arter baking.” Section la or Ordlnanoe No. 2769 or the Qltg or Della&, in deaoriblng tolerance for loaves a? bread, reads as follawaI

“It shall be unlawful for any person by Umeolr or by his employee or agent, or as the employee or agent of

’ another, to manufacture for #ale, cell, offer or expose for sale anybread otherwise then by the rollowlng units of weight! One (1) poundnet, one andoneghalf (lb) pound net, of\multiples ol,one (1) poundnet. Whentwin or multiple~loaves are baked, the weights speolfied in this ordlnenoe shalL apply.- 

## 43

Department of Agrioulture, Page 3

to each unit or the twin 

### or multiple k0ar. when bread la ellaed priop to aala, t%shall be

### moped andthe weights epeoifiad ln this ordlnanoe shall a:,ply to aaah paokape. %a weight speoified in thla Seotion ahall meannet we1 All broad of ered or exposed for sale or ln the pro?ht not more than 24 hours after baking.

oaea of delivery in the City of Dallas ahall for the purposea or this Seotfon, be deemadprima iaoia ta have been bakadwlthln 24houra, unless auohbread 

### la marked~,daalgnated or segregated as ‘atale braad.’ *The variation and toleranoo allowed fn the ralght OSbread ehall not uooed one (1) ‘ounoe par f i ound over or under, on eaoh individual loaf, withn

### aa d24 hour period; and the variation andteleranoe allowed on 10 loaves of bread, madeby the mama manufaaturer whenwei, ed ~ollectlvelp, ahall not exoeed one-fourth (1 4) ounoe per pound in ddiotenoy. P “The weights met out in this aeotion shall not apply to oraokers, p%Haole blsoults, bunm,rolls **or** loavae OSfanay broad we&$&g leas than one-?ourth (l/4) pound avotrdupoie. *All bakery 

### prodwts mpged prior to aale, rhell **hava** the net weight plainly and narked on thr outeide of eaoh 

### paokage. aonrplouously 

### “Anypereon 

### tiol.atlnu any of tho previsiona oi tMs 

### Seotlon of this Ord%nanoe, ahall 

### be deemed guilty 

### of aaimdemeanor andrhall be fined not leoa than #25.00 nor mOre than $200.00.* Here wehave the question as to tho validity of a 

### portion of a oLty ordfmnoe 

### ahleh 1s in eertsln partiaularm &nllar to the State Law, andmakesadditionaL requframentm other than those mentioned In the State law. ~al5 5 0r mlsib 719, sugra, pmolfIa8 that Variation or toleranae ahall, not erased one ounce per pound over QEunder tha said standard within a period of 24 hours aster baking”, and

### the above quotsd olty ordlnanoe provldas that 

### -the varlatlon andtileranoa allowed in weight or bread ahall not exaeed one ounoe per ?ound over or under, on aaeh individual loaf, within eaid 24Department of Agfioulture, Page 4

hour period; andthe variation or toleranoe anowed on ten loaves of bresd, madeby the samemanufaoturer, whenweighed oolleotlvely, shall not exoeed one-fourth ounoe per pound in defiolenoy.n It will be noted that in the State etatute there is no differenoe in the variations or toleranoe whenaoneidering one loaf or any numberof loaves oolleotivelg, ‘but under the city ordinanae for one loaf the variation or tolerance la the sameas provided by the State statute; however, whenten loaves of bread, madeby the samemanufaoturer, are weighed colleotivelg then the variation or toleranoe shall not exoeed one-fourth ounoe per pound in deffcienoy. Thuaimposing adaitional requirementa upon the baker or manufaoturer whenten loaves are weighed oolleotively anddeoreasing the variation or toleranoe to an amountconsiderably less than that would be permitted should the loaves beweighed separately.

It la stated in the oase RxParte Brewer, 15 S. W. 1068, amongother things, that “there la no inhibition in the Constitution or the laws of this State whioh will grevent the oity from dealing with whioh the State laws do not deal where the polioe power is oonf ’erred upon the city

. . .v
we quote from the aitg of Houston Y. Riohter, et al, 157 s. w. 189, as roil0~:

Vhe terms of the ordinance of the oity have been hssetof

’ore set out. The effeot of this provfsion is to prohibit, under penalty of fine, any plumber, whohas received his lioense from the Board of Examiners under the provleione of the statutea, ffom exercising the privileges given himby the statutes unless he further givea the bond provided by the ordinanoe andreoeivee a further lloenae from the oftp of Houston, issued by the City Rngineer

. . . Wethink it is too olear for argument that the ordinanoe in question is ineonaistent with the statute referred to

.” In the ease of Massaohusetts Bonding &Insurance Company et al v. MoHay, 108. W. (8d) 770, at page 771:

“In supplementary brief, appellants urge aa fundamental error that the o,rdinanoe in question, requiring plumbera to exeoute a $3,000 bond in order to prooure lloense to oarry on their business in the City of Eallas 1s unoonstitutional andvoid andthere-Department of Agrioulture, Page 5

?ore 

### aaid bond executed pursuant thereto ir of no foroe andeffeot. Wothink their oontentton in this raspeat is also good. In Artioler 1076and: 1081, R. S., 19W, the Leglelature hamrequired that ii lumbers in aitlea andtowns in oltisa of more than ,000 lnhabitanta 

### be lloenssd before they 0anoporate andhas undertaken to regulate the mannerin whioh auoh lloanae shall 

### be issued. Theatatute itself does not provide for any bond to bs exaautad as a prerequlalte to the oonduot of a plumber'8 business. TheLaf[ielature having ao regulated the mattar by presor bin2 fully the mannerin whioh the pluhbers should be liosnsed, 

### the City of Dallas had M authority to impbsa additional burdQasand requirwnts in thess premiaae

. This question 

### ~8 erpret&ly deolded bythe Galveston Court 

### or aivil **Appeals,** 

### in Rouston v. Xiohter, 147 8. W. lS9. Thts holding was again expressly reoognieed in Xydias Amuaeunent CompanyV. aity of

### Rouston, (Tox. air. 

### APP.) 185 9. w. u6,. i3.a al80 

### Paohe Y. RI&t (Tox. Dir. Apl,.) , 293 2. W. 689. 

### Andthis 

### gsnera.l law of the Stats a of Dallas, irreapeotive of the provf

### plier to thbeOity ahartsr. sions of apeoial

Davis Y. Hollaran (Tsx. ait. **App.) MS**  **S.** W. 11; Pa0hev. 

### night, supre. Said ordinanoe imposing additional burdew to thoae required by the State 

### law upon plumbers within that 010~was inoonai8tent with, and in oonfllat 

### with, the State law and

### was thereiore void. to It ?ollowo then that said bond given pursuant auoh ordinanos wanlikewias void.P1 

### Xydlae AmusamentCompanyv. aity of Roustan, 185 8. w. 145, 

### at page 420:

“The true rule is where the State law speaks, ths oity ordinanae must be silent: where the State law im silent, the olty must apeak."' See also the oaaea of Mantel andRobinson v. City of Galveston, 111

Weoonolude, thereiore, that v. State 117 3. W. 855 9. w. lOi the portion of the alty

.. Ordinanoe 

### ofDallas above quotad with rererenoe to she 

### rariatlon an@tolerance allowed on ten loaves of bread, made

### by the samemanufaoturer whenweighed oollsotively, shall 

### notexoeed one-fourth 

### ounoe per pound in 

### de?iolenoy, invades the field**Depart!!nt of**  **kgriOUltUr6,** 

### page 6

of le&slatlon already occupied bythe Legislature of Texas. T:;edo not believe that the requirements of the above mention& -ord!nanoe enlarges uponor adds to the requirements of the stste statute in apeoi?io matters pertaining to the ;roteotlon o? the publlo. Xhloh, generally speaking, mnnioipal oorpora

### tlons have the right andthe police power to safeguard the health, ooniort o? their 

### olt:zens by such reasonable repulatlona as are neoeasary **for** that purpose. The polloe **power** authorizes only euoh

### measurea as are reasonable; to be

### valid aa an exerolee 

### of this power, 

### anordlnanoe must be reasonable 

### in fte operation upon the person to whomit e??eotsand must not be unduly oppreesive. That is, 

### it muatagpenr that the meansadopt.ed are reaaonably neoessary andappropriate for tho accomplishments of the legitimate objeot falling within tho %ominion of the golice power. Tex. Jur. Vol. 30, pp. 120, 121. Under the Beoisiona of the oourte o? Texas, 

### setout above, it is our opinion that the portion o? the 

### abolre mentioned city ordlnanoe whloh reada that *the variation and toloranoe allowed on ten loaves of bread, madeby the samemanufaoturer, whenweighed oolleotIvely, shall not exesed one-rourth ounoe per pound in dePIolenoy* Ia alearly invalid.

Trustin that the foregoing iully answers your Inquiry, weare Your0 very truly ATTORNEY0sTERA.L

QBTEXAS

Ardell Williama Aarietant

A'J;':BBB