THE,~ITORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

Hon. Zollle Steakley 

Searetary of State 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 

OPINION NO. 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 

question presented in your letter of August 9, 1957, whloh 

reads as follows: 

"The opinion of your office is requested 

concerning the proper oonstruatlon of 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 effective upon the 

approval of the Governor on May 6, 1957; House 

Bill 268 became effective upon 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: 'Corporations having no capital 

stock and organized for the exclusive purpose 

of promoting the public Interest of any city, 

town, county or otherarea.wlthln the State-.; 

House Bill 270 was obviouslv enacted to extend 

this exemption to l~county o> other area1 Chambers 

of Commerce, as well as other corporations which 

might qualify. 

"House Bill 268 was obviously enaeted to exempt 

'non-profit oorporations having 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 Opinion No. ww-260 

"However, House Bill 268 omits the language 

fop other area within the State' in the 

exemption of corporations organized for 

the exclusive purpose of promoting the 

public Interest. House Bill 268 became effeative subsequent to House Bill 270. 

"I am Inclined to read these statutes 

in pari materia and give effect to both, 

since to hold otherwise would seem to 

defeat obvious Legislative Intent. However, I feel that I should have your 

official opinion since the question does 

involve an exemption from the franchise 

tax, even though of a very minor nature." 

&th Bills (House Bill 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 record vote to make them effective upon 

approval by the Governor. 

House Bill 270, Acts 1957, p. 353, became effective 

May 6, 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 conflict with it. 

Therefore, under well settled rules, unless there is a conflict with some provision of House Bill 268, both may 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 par1 materia 

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 rule most helpful in the determlnation of the question presented In this 

case, is thus expressed~in a 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, effect may be given to the 

entire provisions of each. * * * The 

object of the rule is to ,ascertain and 

carry into effect the intention of the 

Legislature, and it proceeds upon the 
Hon. Zollie Steakley Page 3 Opinion No. ww-260 

supposition that the several statutes 

relating to one subject were governed by 

one spirit and policy, and were intended 

to be consistent and harmonious In their 

several parts and provisions.’ Neil1 v. 

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

It applies with peculiar force to 

Acts passed at the same session. McGrady 

v. Terrell, 98 Tex. 427 430-431, 84 S.W. 

641. As to such Acts, It has often been 

held that the aourt, in seeking the 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 enactment had been 

#ed atthe same session of the Legislature. Each 

ldatory act excepted certain counties, but the exceptions in each act included counties not listed in the 

other. The court held 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. . . .Unquestionably these acts must 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 and more 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 conflict between 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 effect unless there Is a conflict, and we see none. 
Hon. Zollie Steakley Page 4 Opinion No. WW-260 

S U M,M A RY 

There is no oonfllct between House Bill ZO 

amending Article 7094 of Vernon's Civil 

Statutes and House Bill 268 amending the 

ssme Artlole. These two Bills are on the 

same subject and were passed at the ssme 

session of the Legislature, and when oonstrued together are not in oonfllot and 

both should be 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