OFFICE OF THE

xmlorable Cleirlc Q#rit-Jlt state Poaxd OS Contxol matin, Texas ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS
**AUSTIN /** Eon. Clark Wright, mge 2

h-tiole 646, Revised Btntutea, is: "The 3onrd shall in all oasesreserve the right to rejector acceptany md 011 bids, or reject In part if it pefers, aa In such ease theymy buy in the openmarketuntilQ satisfactory bid 1s offered." ~eglslature in eetabaad later tha State Board o? Control

was to seourefor the statethe beet pribes possible.

101 s. &?%H 189 Tex 970 decided the erreat

### 0r resolutkl#J ur supremecourthas rooent1y in Caples

v; Cole **by** the use of'thefol.l&ing'langtlsger

717, ?It Is plainthat the rwolutloa not only uudartnkea

to interpret

cr m~~trru whnt the Od&nal not ooatnined but n&so to read into **m&id** lnW vitmlsand intentions not eu~~~sed l.n **t$o&alitl~ot.** Statukee eemnot be amended

. Resolutions-play

their part lnourleglslativehletory,and em ofienresorted to ror the **purpose** of exprsrrrd~ the will of the legl&.atua%, but atatutm eanmt be a~~smd**ed** by resolutdor~i Statutes my be interpreted or oonstrued

by the same of suoosetU.ng leglsla- ,turesin the mannerprorided **by** the eonstitutien and uhile,such

proeeaum ie not Oontmlllng it is persuasive

with the courts in eons- sta- ' tutaa

. The oonetitutlon

hfm clearly re~r$ad them&ode to be pursuedlntb enae iiDle3 lams and tholr ansendraetis. Thr resolution does not meet the requlmnents **prasaribed~ by**  the eonstitution

end, therefore,

eennotbe aonsldered as amending the 1931 aat. We, met lnterpret the orl&xal aot as written.*
&@.n 3.n

the City of asso v, KaCraw, 97 5. vi. (8) I.27 Tex. ¶268, the court saper "It. is true thlat it is proper to look to all. parts 0S the 1egiailatiYe aet, in6luding

the body oi the auf, the captioti and the eraergeacy olsuseto ascertain the legirlative

i&e&, m when such intentis once asoertalned, ft f6 the law. In spitz?

of t&Ismile, we think the wordsClark wright* Page 3

of ths smsrgenay

olauseto Chapter

453, supra, wsre not Intended as a llmitatlon on the aot itself but merely express

the construotion placed **by** thatle&ialuture on an act pessed

by a prior legislature.stloh legislative

aonstruatioW3.s not controlling;

on the otherhand, it la entitled

to very little

weight.".
In iumerous

decisions

the courtshave laid dowu the rule that the publicpolicyof a atatemuat be determined by lta 8otmtItntionlaws and judlolal declelons **and** that a state has no publio

pc&cy properly

oognlzabls

by the oourts

whiah is not detrlvwl, or derivable by cl8er implIoation, fromthe established

laws of the stateas found ln its oonstltution, etatutes

and judlolal

decisions. see 5o.c. J. 859, wyllls overland Co. T. Chapman, 206 a. **W.** QIS,Stiraus and Coapany

**Y,** Canadian Paoifie

RailwayCompany,

173 R. B. 964, and **Week8 Y.**  Nsw **York Life**  **Xb6urms** Company, 35 A. L. **R.** 14SS.

**WI,** therefore,

answerymr qusstlon bpstatingthst the rssolutIon

rsferred

to in your Zettsrdoes net haps ths efi'ttot of mending or modifying the statutes oi the state In anywIse

sad that a resolutloa oannotestablish

the p~ubllc

policy of the at&e, but that the pubI. policyof this state Ie establIshedby Its statutes, oonstltution

and oourt deeleiona and, thereiore,

so tar as the Stats Board of' Conttille oonoerned, its dtitIe8

ars sst out and the 1IndtsOS It0 pmmr6'srs prsstmlbedIn the statutes and that thisduty and tbls poww Is not In anyrise

ahanged

by the resolution. In other woM$, the State Board of Control

has the same powsrsand the fmas dissrstion whioh was vested in it prior to.thepassage of the resolution. The Opinion

of this depeztment

datedBay e3, 1938, referred

to In frour

inquiryis modiiled so as to eonform to this opinion. Bowever It shouldbe statedthat In that Opinion the oonstltutlonal

question

as to ths roree and effeotof a resolution

was not oonsidered. YoursYerytruly Xt?X'ORll

O-AL OF TRXii3

APpROVE~Au& z.ii, i939

ATTORNEY

GEiU3W.L OF TEXAS