Honorable Charles S. I&Millan

County Attorney San Augustine County San Augustine, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No.'

### O-l717 NO: Effect of House Concurrent Resolution 

### 194,,adopted 'June ,' 

### 30;: 1939,~ on Senate Bill No. 

### 89,Acts of 

### 46th Legislature.
We are inreceipt of your letter of November 18, 

### 1939, in,which you request a reconsider.ation of hour.OpinionNo. 

### O-1118. You are concerned with the effect of Houses~ConcurrcntResolution 

### 194 on Senate Bill No. 

### 89,Acts, 

### 46th Legislature.

Opinion~Eo.GU18 held th& Senate Bill No, 

### 89did not donate all subdivision losses, such as schools, roads, etc. in addition to donating .thecounty ad valorea losses in each county. Ve believe that sa~idopinion correctly knterpreted the provisions of said Act.

Senate Bill 

### No.89was approved on Bay 15, 

### 1939. Rouse Concurrent Resolution 

### 194 waspassed on June 30, 

### 1939. Said Resolution provides as follows:

%REREAS, Senate Bill No. 

### 89 tiaspassed bg the Fortyysegular Seesion~of the Te~xasLegislature; and '%E@QAS, The ComRtroller of public Accounts of this State is in question as to the extent aid can be granted to the counties included in the provisions of said Act; now, ther.efore,be it ,"RESOLVEL,by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, That is hereby expressed that the intent of the Forty-sixth Legislature in conformity with the purpose for which said Act was passed, was that aid should be granted to each of said counties to reimburse for tax loss on- -

Hon. Charlea S. M$di&, page 2, O-1717

the land purchases by the Federal Govesnment, including county, school, and road uistrict'tax levies, ,andit was not bnten8'ldto be limitedto~ the,amount Levied and collected by the respective,cbu&j.e'a for'&eneral'Revenus purpose only." Whi$e~saih Resolution atte~.tg~anXy~ts'exp~ain,the, legislative intention in Senate Bill No. 89,'weIPare.'of$he~opinion:that the same if.g$ven effect louId operate to'ainendthe te.rmsof said Senate Bill.. The Resolution provides for Ohe .donati,?n~ $0 l&s counties of ,theamount lost by the school:ai~d.ro,ad:d~stricts, while the original Act makes no such donat,ion.

A similar situation confronted the..SupremeCourt of Texas in the case of Caples vs. Cole, 102 S.W. (28.7173. Rouse Bill 

### 35’8 had been passed by the 42nd Legislature in 

### 1931. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4 was later adopted by the 42pd Legfslature which Resolution attempted to set out the legis~let&va$.ntent$onin House Bill 

### 3.58 in the following language:

n

. .'.That it was the intenti~n'of~~he~.L~gislatur~., and is now the intention of:'theeLegis3.ature that,public school land occup5.M by mistake ,as,provided~ln said Sec. 5
. . ." The dupreme Court stated,as f&lows:
"It la plain that theeresolution sot only~undertakes to interpret or construe !hat the,orig%nal Act opnt~aincd, but also to read into said law words and'intantions not expressed in the original Act. Stat,utes cs.nnqt;Pe awqde$ in that manner. Resolutions play their @art i,nour legislative'history, nd are oftenresorted to for the purpose of expressd,ng the will of the Lagislature, but statutes cannot be amended by resolutions.",' Unquestionably the court's crit$ciom of .SenateConcurrent Resolution No, 4 in the Caples case ~woulda$so.apply here*to Rouse Concurrent Reso ution Non.: '~9b,since we can find no .ambuguityin Senate Bill No.,ii



### 9 sufficient to 'take.:,$t gut of the rule suetout in said ease.It la the opinion ,of ~thisdspa~0mu~t."Chs~refore, thtt Opinion No. O-l+118correctly construes Senate'%XL.No:,''89and that Rouse Concurrent Resolution No.,

### 194 is'ineperet'ivsbeaause sa/d Resolut~lonattsmpts~to amend the prior 

### Aqt,,,",:) ~,~ ~'

Ws did not, ~1x1

opinion 30. &l>Ii$,:.&d do not by.thhl.s ::

,.,

.,,.,Hon. Charles S. McMillan, page 3 O-1717

opinion, pass on the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 89.
Very truly yours ATTORNEY GENERm OF TEXAS
BY Cecil C. Cammack

Assistant
BY Billy Goldberg Assistant BG:N--pm APIROVD DEC 23 

### 1939 GERALD C. MANN ATTORNEY GENEJUL OF TEXAS APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE BY BW3, CHAIRMAN