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 .Opinion No. O-1118. 

You are concerned with the effect of Houses ~Concurrcnt Resolution 

194 on Senate Bill No. 89, Acts, 46th Legislature. 

Opinion~Eo.GU18 held th& Senate Bill No, 89 did not 

donate all subdivision losses, such as schools, roads, etc. in 

addition to donating .the county ad valorea losses in each county. 

Ve believe that sa~id opinion correctly knterpreted the provisions 

of said Act. 

Senate Bill No.89 was approved on Bay 15, 1939. Rouse 

Concurrent Resolution 194 waspassed on June 30, 1939. Said 

Resolution provides as follows: 

%REREAS, Senate Bill No. 89 tias passed bg the 

Fortyysegular Seesion~ of the Te~xas Legislature; 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, ,and it 

was not bnten8'ld to 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.rms of said 

Senate Bill.. The Resolution provides for Ohe .donati,?n~ $0 l&s 

counties of ,the amount lost by the school: ai~d.ro,ad:d~stricts, while 

the original Act makes no such donat,ion. 

A similar situation confronted the..Supreme Court of Texas 

in the case of Caples vs. Cole, 102 S.W. (28.7 173. 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 $.ntent$on in 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 thee resolution 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,n our 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 .Senate Concurrent 

Resolution No, 4 in the Caples case ~would a$so.apply here*to Rouse 

Concurrent Reso ution Non.: '~9b, since we can find no .ambuguity in 

Senate Bill No., ii 9 sufficient to 'take.:,$t gut of the rule suet out in 

said ease. 

It la the opinion ,of ~this dspa~0mu~t."Chs~refore, thtt 

Opinion No. O-l+118 correctly construes Senate '%XL.No:,' '89 and that 

Rouse Concurrent Resolution No., 194 is' ineperet'ivs beaause sa/d 

Resolut~lon attsmpts~ 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