AliwlTN 11. TF3Lw-l ? ‘Lf. mk=x .\~l-T‘l 1’:.WlGY (; 1c‘i K.:1ZA,. March 27, 1958

Honorable HenryWade Opinion No. WW-403 CriminalDistrict Attorney Dallas County Re2 Legal authority for Records Building appointment of PurDallas, Texas chasingAgent of Dallas County, Texas. Dear Mr. Wade: You have requested the opinion of thla office on the following questions:

"1
. What speaific provisionsof law now govern the appointment of the PurchasingAgent of Dallas County?

"2
. What legislativeor other action may be taken to clarify any lack of legal clarity, if any, In the present laws pert$ining to the appolntment of the PurchasingAgent? Seation 11, SenateBill 283, Acts 54th Legislature,Regular Session, Chapter 43, page 52 ainendsthe "DallasCounty Road'Law",'which Is House Bill 62, Acts 51st Legislature,, Regular Session, Chapter 311, page 579. The pertinent amendatory portiongf Section 11 providbs:

"The Commissioners!Court of said county may appoint a 'PurohaslngAgent' for said county, whose duties, officialbond, and compensatio; shall be fixed by satd Commissioners'Court,
. . . This aot became effectiveMarch 29, 1955. Section 1 of House Bill 452, Acts of 54th Legislature, Regular Session, Ohapter 302, page 815, provides in part:

"Inall oountles of this State having a population of one hundred thousand (100,000)br more lnhabitants according to the last preoedlngFederal Census, General or Special, a majority of a Board composed of the Judges of the Dlstrlot Courts and the- ^

Honorable Henry Wade Page.2 (WW-403)

County Judge of such county,may appoint a suitable personwho shall act as the County PurchasingAgent for such county,
. . .' Section 2 of this act contains the repealer clausewhich reads as follows:

"All laws or parts of laws In conflictherewith are hereby expresslyrepealed.' The above statutebecame effective on September 5, 1955. Section 1 (a)of House Bill 736, Acts 55th Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 185, page 382, provides In part:

"Inall counties of this State having a population of one hundred thousand (100,000)or more lnhabitants according to the last precedingFederal Census, General or Special, a majority of a Board composed of the Judges of the District Courts and the County Judge of such county,may appoint a suitable personwho shall act as the County PurchasingAgent for such county,
. . .' Thls statute is set out in Texas Civil Statutes (Vernon's 1948) Article 1580 note. The above quoted Act tracked the language of House Bill 452, supra, as to method of appointment of the PurchasingAgent, while altering its provisions in subsequent languagewhich Is not pertinent to this opinion. This Act Is a bracket population law providing for the appointment of a County PurchasingAgent. Section 56, Article III of the Constitution of Texas, provides, in part:

"TheLegislature shall not, except as otherwise provided In this Constitution,pass any local or special law,
. . .

towns, "Regulatingthe affairs of oounf;les, cities, wards or school districts;

. . . In the case of Miller v. El Paso County, 130 Tex. 370, 150 S.W. 2d 1000, the Co,urtstated:

"Notwithstandingthe above constitutional*. -

Honorable Henry Wade Page 3, ,(wW-403)

provisionfirt. III, Sec. 5@, the courts reaog-' nize in the Lealslature a rxther broad Power to make claasifio&ions for legislativepurposesand, to enact laws for the regulation thereof, even thoughsuch ,legislation may be applloable only to .~ a~partloular class or, ln fact, affedtonly the inhabitantsof a particular locality;but 6uch legislationmust be Intended to apply uniformly to all who may comewithin the classification designated in the Act, and the classification must be broad enough to include a substantial class and must be based on characteristics legitimately distinguishing such class from otherswith respect to the public~pur?osesought to be aooomplishedby the proposed legislation. In otherwords, there must be a substantialreason for the classifi'cation.

. . . 11

. . . I, .Resortto populationbrackets for the purpoie'of alossifying subjects for legislation is permissiblewhere the spread of population Is ;f;;;;enough to include or segregate a substantial and where the populationbears some real reiatlo; to the subject of legislationand affords a fair basis for the classification.

. . .' (Brackets ours). This prlnclple of law has been oonsistentlyrecognized by the Courts and by the Attorneys General of this State. Rodriguez v.'.Gonzales, 148 Tex. 537, 227 S.W. 26 791 (1950)~ Bexar County v. FE, 128 Tex. 228, 97 S.W. 2d 46 (1936)J Oakley v, Kent,1 l~S..W.;ldglq (Tex.Clv. App., 1944 ;Anderson %iiits 1 152 S.W. 2d 1084 (1941);Attorney

:,'I:?% kh61.
It is Important to note that Section 11, Senate Bill 283, F' expressly provided for appointment of a'county Purc aslng Agent for Dallas County by the Commissioners'Court of'such County:whereas, Section 1 of House Bill 452 and Section 1 (a),House Bill 736, supra,were both enacted subsequent to the passage of the amendment to the Dallas County Road Law and provided for the appointment of a Purohaslng Agent in counties of more than one hundred thousand (100,000) populationby the majority of the Judges of the District Courts and the County Judge sitting as a Board.' Dallas Oounty, of course, 1s Includedwithin the purview of coverage of theHonorable Henry Wade Page 4" (WW-403)

latter enactments, since its population Is Inexcess of the prescribedone hundred thousand (100,000). According to the 1950 United States county is 614,799. Census the populationof Dallas
With separate statutes providing for the appointmentof a County PurchasingAgent for Dallas County, the provisionsof which are Inconsistent,the question arises as to which statute shall prevail. We are of the view that House Bill,452, supra, had the effect of expresslyrepealing Senat~e.B111,283, because It contained a general and express repealer and was a later expression of the intent of the 55th Legislature. Even if Senate Bill 283, supra;had remained In effect, it Is our further opinion that as between it and Rouse Bill 736, supra, the two statutes here in question are Inconsistentand are in Irreconcilableconflict, and iach is repugnant to the other. Since both statutes pertain to the same subject and are thus In ,.materia, the doctrine of repeal by implicat%on is app Ze in this instance. We can perceive of no constructionwhich would give effect to both statutesby mating the latter Act cumulative of the former. Section 1 (a) of Rouse Bill 736, supra, having been enacted by the 55th Legislature, is the last expression of the lntentlon of the Legislature concerningappointment of a County, PurchasingAgent in countieswith a population in excess of 100.000. BY settledrules of statutory construction.the latest expression of the Legislature is to control. -Rx Parte De Jesus De La 0, 227 S.W. 2d 212:(Tex.Crim. 1950);Stevens v. State, 159 S.W. 505 (Tex.Crim., 1913);Townsend v. Terrell, 118 Tax. 462, 16 S.W. 2d 1063 (1928);Wright v. Broeter, 143 Tex..142, 196 S.W. 2d 82 (1946). We adopt the view that the two stat&e& may not be rkonciled and o¬ co-exist, and that the latter Act repealed the formerby implication,and the final expression of legislativewill Is to the effect that Ihe PurchasingAgent for Dallas County shall be appointed by a majority of a Board composed of the Judges of the District Courts and the County Judge of such county
. In answer to your first question,you are advised that It is the opinion of this office that House Bill 452, supra, repealed Senate Bill 283 supra, and that even if suchwere not the case, Section 1 (al of House Bill 736, Acts 55th Legislature,Regular Session, Chapter 18 Texas Civil Statutes (Vernon's1948 , page 382, set out in Article 1580 note is controlling over Section 11 of Senate Bill 283, Acts 54th Legislature,Regular Session, Cha ter 43, page 57. P Pursuant to the provisionsof Section 1 (a of House Bill 736, supra, the County PurchasingAgent for Dallas County, Texas, shall be appointedby 'amajority of a Board oomposed of the Judges of the District Courts and the County Judge of such county
._ _-‘-

Honorable Henry Wade Page 5 (WW-403)

'Regardingyour second question,you are advised that we are of the opinion that no legislative or other action need be taken to clarify the present laws pertainingto the appointment of a PurchasingAgent of Dallas County, Texas. We want to thank you for enclosinga copy of the very able opinion and brief wh,ich you have presented to the County Auditor and Judge of Dallas County on these questions. We have found the opinion by Messrs. Carl E. Broyles, John J. Fagan, and A. GeorgeBiggs, AssistantDistrict Attorneys,very helpful in our considerationof this matter.

Section 1 OP House Bill 452, Acts 54th Legislature,Regular Session, Chapter 302, page 815
. repealed Section 11, Senate Bill 283, Acts 54th Legislature,Regular Session, Chapter 43, Also Section 1 (a)of page %xse Bll$.736. Acts 55th Legislature,RegrrlarSession, Chapter 185, page 382, se,t out in Texas Civf;.Statutes (Vernon's1948) Article 1580 note, would nonet,-;he lss be eontrolling over Sec,tionII of Senate BLil 283, Acts 54fh Legislature,Regular Session.,

Chapter 43, page 57. Pursuam to the provisionsof Section?1 (aj of Rouse Bill 736,sups, the County Purchasing Agent for Dallas County, Texas9 shall be appointed by "amajority of a Board composed of the Judges of the District Courts and the County Judge of such county". No legislation orHonorable Henry Wade Page 6 (m-403)

other action is needed to clarify the present laws pertaining to the appointment of the PurahasingAgent of Dallas County, Texas.

Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

Assistant ' BHT:wam:mg APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman J. MiltonRichardson J. Arthur Sandlin L. P. Lollar REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: W. V. Geppert