Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1947 )

R-233 Hon. Claud Gilmer, Chairman Committoe on Appropriations House of Representatives Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-207 Re: Construction of Section 17 of Article III, of the Texas Constitution, relative to adjournments .~ Dear Sir: of the Legislature. Pour request for an opinion is as fellowo: eSection 17 of Article III of the Constitution provides 1 neither House shall, without the consent of the oth- er, adjourn for more than three days nor to any place than that where the Legislature may be sitting.' All of the precedents of the Houae.count an adjournment from one day to the next as a one day adjournment. In other words, if the House adjourns on Thurs- day to re-assemble at a definite hour on Saturday, it is-a two day adjourn- rent. eRecently, the presiding officer of the Senate haa interpreted the above quo- ted constitutional provision aa only mean- ing the intervening day, and excluding the day upon which the adjournment is taken and the day upon which the body would re- conveneo "It is considered that this differ- ence between the House and the Senate should be reconciled. Another,question also arises in this connection, and that is whether or not the tconsentl in the above mentioned provision can be given as a blanket proposition for the entire ees- rion. "1, therefore, request your opinion upon the following questions: Hon. Claud Qilmer, Page 2s V-207 “1, Is an adjournment or recess from Thursday until the following Monday, of either House or Senate, without the consent of the other, violative of Section 17 of Article 3 of the State Constitution? “2” May the consent for aajouramat ‘for more than three days”, of either House to the other, granted by coacurreat resolution, be made as a blanket and con- tlauing authmlzation throughout a session; or must there be a single and specific grant for each aaa every recess or adjourn- mebIto” We ‘shallanswer your questions la the order In which you state them. 10 You are correct in stating that aajourn- ment from one day to the next has long been considered as a one day adjournment by both the Texas House ard Senate and The United States Congress. All of the precedents we have been able to find are in accord on this point, Therefore, the constitutional adjourn- ment for “more than three days” must take Into the count either the day of adjournin or the day of maet- ing. (Texas Legislative Maaual, &9th bglahture, page.180; Hinds? Precedents, V, 6673, 6674.) However, when Sunday ia one of the days within the period of adjourument, that da7 is aot to be counted, This is coatrary to the interpretation made by both you ana the writer of this opinion dur; ing the time we served ae Speaker of the House of Representatives and it Is contrary to the interpreta- tion geaemlly made by other Presiding Officers of both the House and Senate duriag recent years. A careful study of earlier Texas legislative and con- gressional precedents reveals that the correct rule is to exclude Sunday from the count. It is the same rule which excludes Sunday from the constitutional provision that without a quorum, neither House may adjoura except from day to day. The long established . practice allows adjourn8ientfrom Saturday until Mon- day without a quorum, aridthis practice has been ap- proved by former opinions of this office, (Texas Leg- islative Manual, 49th Legislature, page 179) Hon. Claud Gilmer, Page 3, V-207 We find no written precedents in Texas bg- islative Manuals directly holding that Sunday should be excluded from the “three day” period mentioned ia SectIon 17, Article III of the Texas Constltution, but there are precedents in point In the proceedings of Congre88, which are governed by a slrni``f``~vi- sion in the United States Constitution. Article 1, Sec. 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution if the United States Is the apparent source of our own constitutional provision, eua it reads as follows: “Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than 3 days, nor to any other place, than th$t in which the two Houses shall be sitting. The abolrr? provision was inserted in the Texas Constitution of 1845 and vas carried forward in sub- sequent Texas Constitutions. From Honorable Sam Rayburn, former Speaker of the Texas House and former Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, we learn that Sunday has always been excluded from the “three day” provision in the liationalHouse and that the same interpretation was followed by ear- lier Texas Legislatures. In Vol, V, Sec. 6674 of HIHDS’ “Precedents of the House of Representatives”, ve find this lang- uage : “On Nay 29, 1850, the House aajoumea over from Thursday until Monday witho’.@any question as to Sundig being included. In the sams publication, Vol. 8, Sec. 6673, we find the following: “Sunday is not taken Into account in making the coastItutioaal adjournment of ‘not more than three days I. “The constltutional adjournment for not ‘mope than three days’ must take into the court either the day of adjourniag or the day of meeting. “On Saturday, December 28, 1895, Mr. Nelson Dlngley, of Uain, rising to a par- liamentary inquiry, asked: Hon. Claud Gilmer, Page 4, V-207 “My parliamentary inquiry is whether under the Constitution a receee can be taken from to-day until next Thursday or whether that vould be an adjournment for more than three legislative days. ’ “The Speaker said: ‘Sunday is not taken into account in these cases, but the Chair thinks the adjournment can not be to a later day than next Wednesday. 1’ Accordingly, In answer to your first ques- tion, it is our opinion that either the House or Sen- ate may adjourn from Thursday until the following Monday without the consent of the other, such period of time, counting the day of adjournment or the day of reconvening, but excluding Sunday, being for not more than three days, As to xour second question, we are of the opinion that no blanket” consent may be given for the remainder of the session for either House to ad- journ for more than three days. The Constitution contemplates consent of the other House on each sep- arate occasion when one of the Houses desires to ad- journ for more than three days. The obvious purpose of Section 17, Article III, was to avoid the po!%lble Interference with the orderly functioning of the Leg- islature as a dual body in rvklng the laws, by ad- journment of one of the bodies essential to such func- t ioning for a longer t S.methan three days D The time end circumstances of any particular recess adjourn- ment IS clearly a matter of discretion of both Houses as of the tipm when the question arises. This Is ex- pressly recognized in the Constitution In perntlttlug the consent of the “other” House to an adjournment for a longer time than three days. It ia sound legal reasoning, we think, that neither House may by its act of passing a blanket or continuous authorization throughout a session, abdicate its power and duty un- der the Constitution to act upon such adjournment from time to tillsas the request therefor arisen. To permit such a practice would ln effect nullify Sec- tion 17 of Article III, Hon, Claud Gilmer, Page 5, V-207 SlJJMARY Section 17, Article III, of the Texas Constitution, prohibits adjournment of elth- er House for more than three days without consent of the other House, In calculating "three days", the day of adjournment or the day of reconvening must be counted, If a Sunday is within the period of adjournment, It should not be counted, Therefore, eith- er House may adjourn from Thursday to Monday without the eonsent of the other, since the period is not for more than three days, ex- cluding Sunday. A "'blanket"consent of both Houses for adjournments of more than three days at any tlms during the session would violate Section 17, Article III, of the Texas Constitution, since it contemplates separate and specific consent of the other House each time one House desires to adjourn for more than three days D Very truly Yours, Price Da&e1 PDswbsmrj Attorney General