June 

### 28, 1951
Hon. Allan Shivers Governor ofTexas Austin, Texas

-Dear Governor: Opinion No. V-1197. Re: Questions concerning the validity and effect of House Bill No. 190 relating to operations of soil conservation districts. Your letter requesting **our** opinio’n relative to the above captioned matter reads as follows:

WIwill appreciate your opinion on the following

~‘questions inconnection with the above numbered bill:

“(1) The caption begins ‘amending **House** Bill No. 97, Acts of the Fifty-first Legislature,
. . . etc.’ Thera~-is nothing following the enacting clause to indicate that this proposed legislation amends existing statutes. **Question:** Is therr afatal conflict between the caption and the body of theAct?

“(2) Section 4 of theAct authorines the employment of auditors and prescribes the duty ~ofthe ayditors but makes no reference toaccounts of‘theSoil Gonservation District’s being audited by the State Auditor..

‘Question: Under this Act, can the State Auditor continue to audit the accounts ofthe Soil Conservation Districts 7

‘I must act on this bill not later than June 28th andwill appreciate your advice prior to that time.” The caption of House Bill No. 190 states that it is “an Act amending House Bill No. 97, Acts of the Fifty-first Legislature, Regular Session, 1949,
. . .‘I The body ofthe bill does not state that it is amending said House Bill, and in reality does not do SDexcept by necessary implication snd then only as to certain provisions of House Bill No, 97, Acts’Slst Leg., R,.S. 1949, ch. 540, p0 1000, that are in conflict with the provisions of Housr Bill No. 190, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 

### 1951.

It is **our** opinion that there is no,fatal conflict between ,the caption and the body 

### ofHouse Bill No. 190. We have carefullyHon. Allan Shivers, Page 2 (V-1197) ,

examined the caption of House Bill No. 190 in connection with the body of the bill and have concluded that theAct constitutes a complete bill within itself and that the caption is sufficiently broad to- cover the various provisions contained in the body of the bill. The portion of the caption ofHouse Bill No. 190 which states that it is amending House Bill No. 97 should be rejected as surplusage. 1 Sutherland on Statutory Construction (3rd Ed, 1943) 328.

We have also compared the provisions of House Bill No. 190 with the provisions ofHouse Bill No. 97 ofthe 51st Legislature and find that certain provisions ofboth bills are inharmony, that certain portions ofHouse Bill No. 97have been re-enacted as a part of **House** Bill No. 190; and that aportion of the provisions of House Bill No. 190,are in direct conflict with the provisions of House Bill No. 97. We further find that there are certain provisions of House Bill No. 97 the substance o,fwhich is not covered or touched upon by the provisions of House Bill No. 190. ‘,

It is our,opinion that **House** Bill No. 190, if itbecomes law, would be valid; that the prov,iqions thereof are inpari materia with the provisions of House Bill No. 97; and that both Acts should be construed together to mahe a,harmo

‘Terrell, 118 Tex. 463, 16S.W.2d 1863, Pious .whole. Townsend v, 1429).’ Of **course,** as H**ouse** Bill No. 190 is the latest expression of the Legislature, the provisions thereof, in case of an irreconcilable conflict with the provisions of Ho,use Bill No. 97, wo,uld control over and impliedly repeal the provisions of House Bill No. 97,which are inirreconcilable conflict. Att’y Gen. Op. V-990 (1950) and authorities there cited.

It is **our** opinion that ifHouse Bill No. 190 becomes a law, the State Auditor can still audit the acco~unts ofthe soil conservation districts as provided for in Section 3of House Bill No. 97. House Bill No. 190 provides for,annual ,audits’ tobe prov~idedby the supervisors of the soil conservation districts. Howeve’k’; it is **our** opinion that these two provisions are not in conflict with each other and that Section 4 of House Bill No. 190 does not impliedly repeal Section 3of Hous,e Bill No. 97, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1~949.ch. 540, p0 1000.
SUMMARY ‘~

Ther,e is no fatal conflict betwean the caption

. and the body ofHause Bill No. 190, Acts 52nd Legislature, relating to soil, conservation districts. ‘House Bill No. 190 and House, Bill No. 97%Acts 51st Legislature, should be construed together as they are in. pari materia. Since House Bill No. 190 is the latest expression of the Legislature,, in,cas,e of conflictingHon. Allan Shivers, Page 3 (V-1197)
provisions, the provisions of House Bill No. 190 will control. Att’y Gen, Op. V-990 (1990). IfHouse Bill No. 190 becomes law, the State Auditor can continue to audit the accounts of the State soil conservation districts. Yours very truly, PRICE ,DANIEL Attorney General
APPROVED: Everett Hutchinson Executive Assistant Charles D. Mathews First Assistant Assistant

WVG/mwb