**VV** OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

6-W c. mNN .lvoNn .mlPUC

Eon. D. %iehardVolga8 GOUtlt~

**AttorPay** wil6aEl county IlcpeerSlls, !Puas
Dear sirr ‘opinion wo. oThis till aoknm tar0rntm3

cls 4399, RariBly, we are &la&

sldLture

(ohap. 8, 46th Leg., %%g. SSSO.), utlonal by opinion !?o.O-23 1 at this adartnfstrstlon.

se Bill No. 205, ~6.6 of the @3l&iw%* asgular seBsi%n, crppruvt3U

on Lsay 25, 1939, and whiah bill beoaue sff&otiVa rrtSy a., 1939, the Legislaturere-snaated and passed the iamtioUoEo~~il1 IFo=727, ci the Fortyrirth L@ i ***Hon. D. XioherdVOge8, page 2

205. You than quote the %m%Cg%noyolause of~E.B.

Beoentlywe rendered o~lnlan I?o. O-907 k, Hon. I. Pra%d%oki,County Auditor oi CUreston County, and ln that oplnlanwe held H.B. 2QS aa %naoted a aanstltutional

and valid statute. Howm%r, the **pu88tio~** raised by Mr. Prasdsoklwas the raot that the mg~- ay clause proolaim%d LB. 205 to be the same Aat au H.B. 727, supra,whereas in truth there w%r% aubetantial and material ahanges in the text. Wo held In QUF opinion in that oaee that ths smergenoyolauso b%lng erroneousdid not vitiate the bill.

We enalose,herewith,a oopy oft opinion No. O-907 for your ooneideratlon. You will readily note tram reading same the dlfrer%no%sin the two anu~&tr+ ry Aota.
However lf it should be oonoededthe t%rma 0f~X.B. 205 passe& in 1939, an6 LB. 727, the 1937 Aot deolaredunoonatitutiona& were synonymous, the effsst would not be to mak% oounties llabb for **0013li8 8oQN**  ing Irm the time H.B. 727 iae deolared unaonstltutlonal until the exsoutiveapproval oi H.B. 205 mad% 'it effeativeas a law. We qmte the following from 39 T%x. Jur. 41%

*The enactmento? %uratiV% StetUte8 Oonatituteea valid exeraissof legislative pavier. In this mamer the Legislature oan eive oapaoity or dispensewith any iarmaJ.lty it could have previously&van or d.ispeneed with. In ehort, it oan rati- anything it, could have authorizedin the first lnetanoe. But the I.%gislature oennat breathe the breath of life into a dead thing.' Thus it a%nnot validate an unoonatltutlonal **%tatUt%, Xf.E**  vitalize a void judgznent.w (Esnphasl8

OUTS).
We pots iraa 12 O.J. 1092;
"An unoonstitutional statute 1s abeolut%- ly nti and vald ab inltio,having no bind-Hon. D. Riohard VOgeil, page 3

**lng force;**  and is not vallduted by a subs%- quent Constitutional Amendmentrsm%VLng the rG;%;;itlonb,:

whloh its snaotment wau proguoh statutesare regardedau though :hep had never been in exlstenoe**and** are not in01ud06 in 5 tit ti al int%nded to oontinue 'sst& PrOYiUiOIk8 Es ln tome until altered or rep%aleUby leglslatlraastlon, such provlslonshaving referenoe Only to auah laws as are oonstitutlonal **and** valid. Nor has a legislature any authorityto ral- 'idate %n unoonetitutional proseedIngW (~@lltUill O&8) The oases cited by you in your able bri%i interpretand construeYe&dating or OuratiV% **AOt8** whioh are no designatedby their terms. WI, hare been unable to find any authorityholding an amendmantto a statutewhioh materiallytarles the terms oil the amended sot to oooupy the status of, or sefve the purpose or, a ourativeAot.

We, therefore,hold that LB. 203, 8uprar while oonstltutional and valid, does not operate a8 a retroaotlve law, and that olilaersare not %ntltl%d to be paid fees by the oounty from the tlsm of our holding LB. 727 wonstitutional to the erfeotlve date OS LB. 205.

With reirenge to the e%o%nd part of your brief, we adhere to opinionNo. O-077 written to you on Eay 12, 1939, by AssistantAttorneyGeneralVim.3. R.. Kiing. Of oourse eaoh inetanoewould depend uRon ite own fact situation,but we do not believe the substitutionof the words ndisohargesthe EWW by mean8 of workin&,

auoh fioe out oh the oounty roads or on any oounty #rojaot* In LB. 205, would oall foraterially differentinterpretation from that plaoed on the wclrds

W%atisil.ad

the fine and costs adjudge& against him In full by labor in ths workhouse, m the oounty farm, on the 5ublI.o roads or upon any uublio works of the county" as same appeared in Artiole 1055, C.C.Y.) prior to the amendment.~RapeoiallyIs ttisXon. D. RichardVoges, page 4

true when oonslderedin conneotlonwith.the language of Artiole 793, G.C.P., as oonstruedby ILr.lCing in his opinlctl

No. O-677. Article 793 provides in aubstanoethat where a derondsntis oonviotedot a misdemeanorand hia punishmentis assessed at a psauniarg i$ne, ii he is unable to pay the rlne and oosts assessed against him he may ror such time as will satisfythe judgment be put to work in the workhouse, or on the oounty rtcm, or on public improvements or the oountp, of ir. there be no workhouse, farm or tiprorements, he 8hall be imprisonedin Jail.
Youra very truly

APPROVXDJUL 8, 1939