principleswhich we believepoint to a proper solutionof the apparentconflict.
SenateBill No, 266 ooutainsno repeal of any of the provisious of the Texas UnemploymentCcenpensationActs nor for thatnatter of my other previousleglalativeenaotmente. It containsneithera specificnor a gsn- era1 repeal of prior lsgislation.In order to reach the conclusionthat this Bill, in fact, repealsany portionof the UnemploymentCanpensatlon Act, we would be requiredto rely upon a repealby implication.As pointed out in Texas Jurisprudence,repealsby implicationare not favored.
"Accordingto numerouspronouncsments of the Texas courts,the repeal of statutesby implicationis never favoredor presumed, The two acts will persistunless the conflictingprovisionsare so antagonisticand re- pu@mnt that both cannot stand. Where there is no express repeal,the presumptionis that in emoting a new law the Legislatureintendedthe old statuteto remain in operation." 39 Tex. Jur. 140, and cases cited iu tie footnotes.
Under the rules above stated,we must presumethat in enacting Senate Bill No. 266 and in makiug uo expressrepeal of existinglegisla- tion, the Legislatureintendedthat the couflietingprovisionsof the Uh- employmentCompensationAct remain in effect. Texas Jurisprudenoefurther points out that;
"If by any reasonableconstructiontwo sets or statutoryprovisionscan be reconciledand so oon- strued that both may s+tsnd, one willnotbe held to repeal the other. Especiallywhere tie older law is particularand is expressedin negativeterms,and the later statute is general,a construotionwill be soughtwhich harmonizesthem and leavesboth in con- currentoperation." 39 Tao Jur. 141-2,and oases cited in the footnotes.
We direct your attentionalso to the rule that a generalact does not repeala specialor particularlaw. The entwtmentof a generallaw does not ordinarilyopera,te as a repeal of a particularor speciallaw, by impli- cation,althoughboth relate to the same sub$eotmatter. On *he contrary, both statutesare permittedto stand, and the general law is applicableto all cases not embracedby the speclfiosot. In other words, the partioular act Is eonstruedas constitutingan exceptionto the general law. This is said to be a settledrule of constructionbased upon tie presumptionthat a s~~~ffi(:s&tu,t;eeyiden~*st&e jxrteamthm c.2+&h IngS.slas.t;Ls"e more e?sarJ$ctb.Rn a genera2one, ma ~e;rCfme ahcd.aeoE,t~'~3i., jg 'Fez.@T&r.i4945c; Tc7msena y. Terrell,118 Tern.463, 16 S,W. (2&) ~063; Ellis v. Batits,26 Tex. 703; Cole v. State, 106 Tex. 472, 170 S,W. ;la36,dimfsehg errcr 1.63S.W. 353. .
HonorableclaudeA. Willimm, Page 9 (O-5524)
V. Bette, 26 Tex. 703; Cole Y. State, 106 Tex. 472, 170 S.W. 1036, dismlsalngerror 163 S.W. 353.
Under them rulee of statutoryoonetruation,the Texae Ummploy- ment CompensationAot will be held oontsollingin mattererelatingto the eeourlngof rentalspaoe by the UnemploymentCmupeneatlonCcem~Ieelon, while senate BIU HO. 266 IS oontrolling in mattere regardingrental spaoe needed by other &epar+mentaor agenclea,which are not controlledby specialor particularstatutes.
You are thereforeadvised,and it Is the opinionof this depart- ment, that the provisionsof Senate Billlo. 266 40 not apply to the Texas UnemploymentCmpensation Ccamission.
Trustingthat ve have fully answeredyour inquiryand that you will call upon ue if we oan be of furtherservice,we are
Yours very truly
By /a/ Peter Maniscalco Peter Manlscalco Assistant Pwff
APPROVKDAIJG30, 1943
/e/Gerald 0. Mann
Al?lS~QEliEBALOFTEXAS APPROVED OPIBlIOly COMMIm BY /sbm Chalnmn