### THE,~ITORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

Hon. Zollle Steakley Searetary of State Capitol Station Austin, Texas OPINIONNO. MN-260
Re:

Dear Mr. Steakley: Proper construotlon of House Bills 2j'O

and 268 of the 55th Legislature relating to exemptions for corporations from the payment of franchise tax.
You request the opinion of this office upon the questionpresented in your letter of August 9, 1957, whloh reads as follows:

"The opinion of your office is requested concerningthe proper oonstruatlonof House Bills 270 and 268, Acts of the 55th Leglslalature, each of which is in the form of an amendment to Article 7094.
"House Bill 2i'O

became effectiveupon the approval of the Governor on May 6, 1957; House Bill 268 became effectiveupon the approval of the Governor on May 31, 1957. The dates of approval by the Governor in each instance followed the course of the Bills through the Legislature. "The problem involves the exemption in House Bill 2i'O

read: 'Corporationshaving no capital stock and organized for the exclusivepurpose of promoting the public Interest of any city, town, county or otherarea.wlthln the State-.; House Bill 270was obviouslv enacted to extend this exemption to l~county o> other area1 Chambers of Commerce,as well as other corporationswhich might qualify.
"House Bill 268 was obviously enaeted to exempt 'non-profitoorporationshaving no capital stock organized for the purpose of education of the public in the protection and conservation of fish, game and other wildlife, grass lands and forests.'Hon. Zollie Steakley Page 2 OpinionNo. 

### ww-260

"However,House Bill 

### 268omits the language fop other area within the State' in the exemption of corporationsorganized for the exclusivepurpose of promoting the public Interest. House Bill 

### 268became effeative subsequentto House Bill 270.
"I am Inclined to read these statutes in parimateria and give effect to both, since to hold otherwisewould seem to defeat obvious Legislative Intent. However, I feel that I shouldhave your official opinion since the question does involve an exemption from the franchise tax, even though of a very minor nature." &th Bills (HouseBill 270 and House Bill 268) szan&+d Article 7094, Vernon's Civil Statutes. To answer your question,we do not deem It necessary to set out these respective Bills. They were both passed at the same Session of the Legislature; namely, the 55th, 1957, and both passed with the required recordvote to make them effectiveupon approval by the Governor.

House Bill 270, Acts 1957, p. 

### 353,became effective May6, 1957. House Bill 

### 268,Acts 1957, p. 790, became effective May 31, 1957. House Bill go, the latter Bill, has a provision repealing only prior provisions in conflictwith it. Therefore,under well settledrules,unless there is a conflictwith someprovision of House Bill 

### 268,bothmay stand **as written**  and both given full effect. As the two Bills were passed at the ssme Session of the Legislature and bear on the same subject,we should construe them in par1materia and treat them as in effect one Bill. The Supreme Court, in the case of State v..Dyer, 145 Tex. 586, 200 S.W. 2d 813, states the rule clearly In this language:

"The rulemost helpful in the determlnation of the questionpresented In this case, is thus expressed~ina very early decision: 'These statutes,being in pari materia, and relating to the same subject, are to be taken together and so construed, in reference to each other, as that, if practicable, effectmay be given to the entireprovisions of each. * * * The object of the rule is to ,ascertainand carry into effect the intention of the Legislature, and it proceedsupon theHon. Zollie Steakley Page 

### 3 OpinionNo. 

### ww-260

suppositionthat the several statutes relating to one subjectwere governed by one spiritand policy, and were intended to be consistentand harmonious In their severalparts and provisions.’Neil1 v. Keese, 

### 5 Tex. 23, 32, 33, 51Am.Dec.746.

It applieswith peculiar force to Acts passed at the same session.McGrady v. Terrell, 

### 98 Tex. 427 

### 430-431,84 S.W. 

### 641. As to suchActs, It has often been held that the aourt, in seekingthe legislative intent,will read them together as if they were embraced in one Act."



### 266 pass **men** In Austin.v..G.C.&S.F.R.R. Co., 

### 45 Tex. 

### 234, (1876),two acts amending a prior enactmenthad been #edatthe same sessionof the Legislature. Each ldatoryact excepted certain counties, but the exceptions in each act included countiesnot listed in the other. The courtheld that the acts were not in conflict, stating: "Under the general rule of statutory

construction, laws relating to the same subject, enacted during the same session of the Legislature, are to be construed together, and are ordinarily to be taken as parts of the same act.
. . .Unquestionablythese actsmust be construed together, and effect given to their entire provisions, if they are not in direct conflict.

. . .But it cannot be said, because the exceptions in the one are broader andmore enlarged than in the other, that there is any such conflict between them." The two Bills vary only slightly. House Bill '270 contains the phrase "or other area within the State"which Is not present in House Bill 

### 268. Paraphrasing the language in the Austin case, it cannot be said,because the exemption in House 270 is broader than In House Bill 

### 268,that there is a direct conflictbetween them. Both Bills are on the same subject,were passed at the same session of the Legislature, and should be construed together and both given effectunless there Is a conflict, and we see none.Hon. Zollie Steakley Page 

### 4 OpinionNo. WW-260

S U M,M A RY There is no oonfllct betweenHouse Bill ZO amendingArticle 7094 of Vernon's Civil Statutesand House Bill 

### 268amending the ssmeArtlole. These two Bills are on the same subject **and** were passed at the ssme sessionof the Legislature,and when oonstrued together are not in oonfllot and both shouldbe given full effect as one law. Very truly yours

LPL/fb
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE George P. Blackburn, Chairman Mary Kate Wall
W. R. Hemphill Roger Daily
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: James N. Ludlum WILL WILSON