AliwlTN 11. TF3Lw-l 

? ‘Lf. mk=x 

.\~l-T‘l 1’: .WlG Y (; 1c‘i K.:1ZA,. March 27, 1958 

Honorable Henry Wade Opinion No. WW-403 

Criminal District Attorney 

Dallas County Re2 Legal authority for 

Records Building appointment of PurDallas, Texas chasing Agent of 

Dallas County, Texas. 

Dear Mr. Wade: 

You have requested the opinion of thla office on the following questions: 

"1 . What speaific provisions of law now 

govern the appointment of the Purchasing Agent of 

Dallas County? 

"2 . What legislative or 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 Purchasing Agent? 

Seation 11, Senate Bill 283, Acts 54th Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 43, page 5 

2 

ainends the "Dallas County 

Road'Law",'which Is House Bill 62, Acts 51st Legislature,, 

Regular Session, Chapter 311, page 579. The pertinent amendatory portion gf Section 11 providbs: 

"The Commissioners! Court of said county 

may appoint a 'Purohaslng Agent' for said county, 

whose duties, official bond, and compensatio; shall 

be fixed by satd Commissioners' Court, . . . 

This aot became effective March 29, 1955. 

Section 1 of House Bill 452, Acts of 54th Legislature, 

Regular Session, Ohapter 302, page 815, provides in part: 

"In all oountles of this State having a population of one hundred thousand (100,000) br more lnhabitants according to the last preoedlng Federal 

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 

person who shall act as the County Purchasing Agent 

for such county, . . .' 

Section 2 of this act contains the repealer clause which 

reads as follows: 

"All laws or parts of laws In conflict herewith are hereby expressly repealed.' 

The above statute became effective on September 5, 1955. 

Section 1 (a) of House Bill 736, Acts 55th Legislature, 

Regular Session, Chapter 185, page 382, provides In part: 

"In all counties of this State having a population of one hundred thousand (100,000) or more lnhabitants according to the last preceding Federal 

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 

person who shall act as the County Purchasing Agent 

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 Purchasing Agent, while altering its provisions 

in subsequent language which Is not pertinent to this opinion. 

This Act Is a bracket population law providing for the appointment of a County Purchasing Agent. 

Section 56, Article III of the Constitution of Texas, provides, in part: 

"The Legislature shall not, except as 

otherwise provided In this Constitution, pass any 

local or special law, . . . 

towns, 

"Regulating the 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,urt stated: 

"Notwithstanding the above constitutional 
*. - 

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

provision firt. III, Sec. 5@, the courts reaog-' 

nize in the Lealslature a rxther broad Power to 

make claasifio&ions for legislative purposes and, 

to enact laws for the regulation thereof, even 

though such ,legislation may be applloable only to .~ 

a~partloular class or, ln fact, affedtonly the 

inhabitants of a particular locality; but 6uch 

legislation must be Intended to apply uniformly 

to all who may come within 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 others with respect 

to the public ~pur?ose sought to be aooomplished by 

the proposed legislation. In other words, there 

must be a substantial reason for the classifi'cation. 

. . . 

11 

. . . 

I, .Resort to population brackets for 

the purpoie'of alossifying subjects for legislation 

is permissible where the spread of population Is 

;f;;;; enough to include or segregate a substantial 

and where the population bears some real reiatlo; to the subject of legislation and affords a 

fair basis for the classification. . . .' (Brackets 

ours). 

This prlnclple of law has been oonsistently recognized 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) 

population by the majority of the Judges of the District 

Courts and the County Judge sitting as a Board.' Dallas Oounty, 

of course, 1s Included within the purview of coverage of the 
Honorable Henry Wade Page 4" (WW-403) 

latter enactments, since its population Is Inexcess of 

the prescribed one hundred thousand (100,000). According 

to the 1950 United States 

county is 614,799. 

Census the population of Dallas 

With separate statutes providing for the appointment of a 

County Purchasing Agent for Dallas County, the provisions of 

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 expressly repealing 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 Inconsistent and 

are in Irreconcilable conflict, 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 

construction which would give effect to both statutes by 

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 concerning appointment of a County, 

Purchasing Agent in counties with a population in excess of 

100.000. BY settled rules 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 former by implication, and 

the final expression of legislative will Is to the effect that 

Ihe Purchasing Agent 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 such were not 

the case, Section 1 (al of House Bill 736, Acts 55th Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 18 

Texas Civil Statutes (Vernon's 1948 

, 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 provisions of Section 1 (a of House Bill 736, supra, 

the County Purchasing Agent for Dallas County, Texas, shall 

be appointed by 'a majority 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) 

'Regarding your 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 pertaining to the appointment of a Purchasing Agent of Dallas County, Texas. 

We want to thank you for enclosing a 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. George Biggs, Assistant District Attorneys, very 

helpful in our consideration of 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, Regrrlar Session, Chapter 

185, page 382, se,t out in Texas 

Civf;. Statutes (Vernon's 1948) 

Article 1580 note, would nonet,-;he lss be eontrolling over 

Sec,tion II of Senate BLil 283, 

Acts 54fh Legislature, Regular 

Session., Chapter 43, page 57. 

Pursuam to the provisions of 

Section? 1 (aj of Rouse Bill 

736, sups, the County Purchasing Agent for Dallas County, 

Texas 9 shall be appointed by 

"a majority of a Board composed 

of the Judges of the District 

Courts and the County Judge of 

such county". No legislation or 
Honorable Henry Wade Page 6 (m-403) 

other action is needed to 

clarify the present laws pertaining to the appointment of 

the Purahasing Agent 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. Milton Richardson 

J. Arthur Sandlin 

L. P. Lollar 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: 

W. V. Geppert