Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

OFFiCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Iionorablc lkcver B. Baker, Chalrmm
State 3card of Control
Aust la, !ibas See V-206 for change in fact situation.
Dear sir:
French Embassy bulldlng and all proportlaa there-
in.”
Section 2 contains a Gescrlptlon of the property to
be ,pwchased under said Bill.
,
.
. SW
Houorabla &aver E. Baker, page 2
I
::
Section 3 provides:
.*
“Said building 1s hereby set aside for the
uses and purposes of the Dnughters of the Republic
of Texas, and the said Daughters of the Republic
of Texas be ar.d the sme are hereby authorized to
tske full chavCc of sold bulldlrz cud use of the
:. , sibm as they my see proper. YLe property of the
sold French I2abassg shsll be the proyertg of the
State, and the.tltle of said pmperty shall re-
naln in ,.the custody of eho Board of Control.”
You ask uhethor the appPoprlatlon of the balance of
the Texas Centeimlal Co~lsslon fund Is authorized. In our
Opinion PO. O-5522, addressed to the Hocoroble Harley Sadler,
a copy of uhlch 1s enclosed herewith, vs passed on the author-
ity of the Ioglslature to now appropPlate the balance in this
fund for the purpose of purchasing the Esbassy. It 1s the
opinion of this departcent that tho npproprlatloa la authorized,
provided that a release is obtained fzon the ‘proper Federal
authority before said fund la disbursed.. .’
You ask also:
“‘Hhnt agency is authorized to negotiate for
the purohase of the old French ikbassq, and on
what terms?”
By Article XVI, Eoctlon 39, ,of. the Constltutlon of
Texas, the Lsglslotuiie 1s given the authority and 1s charged
with the duty of preserving conorinls of the hlstory of Texas.
The latent of the Legislature is nest clearly expressed In
Eiouse Bill 110. 728 --.to effect the purchaoe of the Esbaasg,
which is latlmtely connected vita the early history of TQXCS.
There .is some question, however, uhethqr the Legislature pro-
vided for the apDvopvlste sEchanlsn to effectuate its pwpose.
IJo ludlvldual or agency is directed to negotiate for the pur-
chc.so in this bill.
The ccuons of statutory construction have been ex-
pressed varloucly in these term:
. “tThst which Is lsrclied la a statute 1s as
much a part of It as vhkt is expressed, 1 1s a
settled rule of constructlou. . . . Uhen a stat-
UtQ commands or grants anything;, it lmplledly au-
.’thorizes whatever is necessary for executing its
I
T Bonorable WeaVQr R, -Asker, pogo 3
*
commands or vhatevcr lo indispcnccble.to ~the en-
.’ Joycent or exercloe oft the grant. ,..:? ‘.39,Tex.
. .
hr. 176, sot. 93. ,~
?!hus l.t is settled that a statute bill be
conotruod vlth reference to its intended scope,
its Secercl purpose, and the ends or objectives
so@& to be obtained. Every provislon, clause
or word of an act will be construed u:th refer-
ence to Its leading idea or general purpose, and
. Fl;r$$t, so far as possible, into harmony there-
. 39 Tex. Jur., 216, SQC. 116.
‘9. statute or provlsloa should not be given
a construction rendering it. fruitless, futile,
meaningless, purposeless, or ucoless, when the
.
lanzwge can be othervise cowtrued. The reason
of tha rule, is that the Legislature is not to
be credited with doing or intending a foolish- ., ‘,
useless or vain thing . . . . ’ 39 Tear. Jur . 225,
1~ seci 11.9.
HOUSQ Bill Bo. 7% give3 the Da@ters- of the RQ-
public authoriGy to ta!os full char&o of said bulldlng and to
use SCEE ns they may see fit. We nro advised that, although
the u;loxpcndcd balance of the Terns Ccntcnnlol Commlcslon
fund is only approximately $24,000, the purchase price of tha
mbassy vi11 bti substantially in oxccsc of that sum, or ap-
pl’OXfl’2tQlY $37,000. The difference of some$13,000 will be
raised by the Daughters of the Republic by private subscrlp-
dilon. ’
Under all of these cIrcumstancea, all of which must
have been vell knovn to it, It is only logical to assume that
the kglslature intended for the DauChtors of the Republic to
negotiate for the purchase of the property ‘described. in House
” Blu NO. 7%.
AS ue have pointed out 1.a Opinion No. O-6522, the
money in the Texas Centennial Commission fund cannot be re-
leased to the Daughters of the Republic, for to do 30 voulcl
violate Article III, Section 51, of the Constitution.
Hovever , v!zen :;:crc is tendered to the Board of Con-
trol :a good end sufficient deed conveying fee simple tit& la
this property to the 3tate of Texas, you vii1 be authorized to I
8CC42,'; thQ 88lW for the State. Thereupon you will be cuthor- I
lzed to request that the Comptroller Issue E warrant for the
.
.
Honorable Weaver H, IXker,. page 4
.
payment out of the Treasury to the owners of said property,
of the balance of sald fund, provided, of COLUSC, that the
actual purchozz price of said pmipertg is least equal to
ct
that balance. The Comptroller vi11 be authorized to issue
said warrant, and the Treasurer wJ.11 be authorized to pay
same, provided the release referred to above has been ob-
tained.
This procedure will effectuate the provisloas of
House Bill No. $33, that: .
“The property of said French Dziiassg shall
bs the property of the State, aad the title of
. said p;?opo?ty shall renoia in the custody of the
Board of Control. ”
.~’ .
Your last quest1oa is:
“is the authorlzatioa to the Daughter8 of the
Republic of Texas %o take full c%rge of said build-
1~ valid?’
ThlS sane question arose with rcfcronce to the pw-
chase and custody of the Alt-ao. Acts 29th Leglalature, Chap-
ter 7, Fzovfdod for the purchase of the Alamo by ,the State,
land delivery of the property “to .the custody and care of the
Daughters of the Republic of Texas.” The Sugrenc Court, la ” ..
passi% upon the validity of such provision in the case of
Codleg v. Caughters of the Republic, 156 S.W. 197, 200, said:’
“The potter of the Legislature of this state,.’
with refercace to the PPopcrty in question, is
not limited by sag >mvision of the Constitution; .
therefore, it haa in genepal ‘the saze rL$lts and
powme la respect to property as an irdivldual. -..
It zzay acquire property, zeal CT personal, by con-
veyance, will, or othervise, and hold or dlspose
. of the sane or apply it to any purpose, public or
private, as it .soes fit. The power of the state
‘. in respect to its property rights Is vost.ed in the
Legislature, and the Loglslature alone can exercise ‘.
the power necessary to the enjoyment and protection
of those rights, by the enactment of statutes for
that purposo. . . , Tine state has, in Deneral, the
snm power to contract as a corporation or an in-
dividual. ’ 36 Cyc. pp. 869, 871.
.
803
.
. .
7
‘Eon&able We&vor B. Baker, page 5
%e ~23 o: opiaioa that tke &ate, acting
by its ‘Leni313two, had t&c? wthority to acquire
title to &a Ale~o property cad to place that’
prosertg In the custody of the $orporation, the
Da$&tars of the Rep&UC. ...
Of like import 1s I;iw v, Sbcppard, 257 k..tI. (2d)
682, ermr refasod, which concorned the purchase of ~thc Big
Bend !?atl,.saal pazk by tke State and delivery thereof to the
Federal Govermeut .
.Ve are,‘thersforo; of the opiaioa that the p~ovl-
sioa authorieitq the Dx;lgitcrq of .tho Rcpubllc tq take iti1
cb3rge of the abassg is a valid oae.
,&Wing that we. havo answered your iaquiriea fully,
we are