Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-6908 Page: 4 of 5
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
8on. Sam . all, page 4
As to whether the portion of the Act whioh is in oonform-
ty with the title can stand is dependent upon the obJect of the
ilaw, the intention of the Legislature, and the manner in-whioh
the unconstitutional portions affeot the remainder of the Aot
(ee 9 T*ex. Jur, Sea. 56 p). 473; State v. Laredo lee Co.,
: p Tex. 461, 73 S . 951. here portions of an aot are
unconstitutional and where all of the provisions of the not are
connected in subject matter and operating together for the same
purpose, or otherwise so connected in subject matter in such a
smanner that it cannot be presumed that the Legislature would
:have passed the one without the other, the whole act is void.
(Spence v. Fenchlet, 107 Tex. 443; Lewis' Sutherland Statutory
Construction Second Ed. Vol. 1, p. 600 9 Tex. ur., Seo. 56,
pp. 73-4, and cases cited thereunder.
In the instant situation, when the Act is viewed as a
ihole, it is manifest that the purpose of the Act was to pro-
vide a penalty for the private use of public property and other
4hiang of value belonging to or paid for by the State, a county
or .municipality. The body of the Act contains provisions which
are applicable to all of the general classifications of public
officers in this State (State, county and municipal). Moreover,
.all of the above mentioned public officers, which .are subject to
the provisions of the Constitution and laws of this State, are
lby this Act, subject to the same penalty for using public
property for private profit, Also we call particular attention
to the following language containeA in Sootion 5 of said Act:
"The fact that there is no law providing a
penalty against the use of ublie proprert unlaw-
fully as defined in this bir, .a .. e an
emergency. . (Undersooring ours)
The preeding sections of. the Act contain provisions with refer-
mo e to the property of the State, counties and municipalities.
re note further that a. B. No. 80 contain no severability
or savings clause, and we are unable to find any indication that
the Legislature would have enacted same with the unconstitutional
P provisions eliminated. In view of the nature and general purpose
ot , a. B. No. 80, it is our opinion that the Legislature intended
that the provisions thereof would be applicable as a whole and did
a L intend that they would be applicable only to counties, when
the portions of the Act with reference to the State and municipal-
ties are unconstitutional.
Here’s what’s next.
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-6908, text, 1945; (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth264185/m1/4/: accessed February 22, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.