Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )


Menu:
  •                                      May 16, 1974
    The Honorable      Clayton T. Garrison                Opinion    No.   H-   306
    Executive   Director,
    Texas Parks and Wildlife     Department               Re:   Whether H.       B. 833,
    John H. Reagan Building                                     63rd Leg.,       modified
    Austin,   Texas 78701                                       or repealed       Article
    9521-12, V.      T. C. S.
    Dear   Mr.    Garrison:
    You have asked whether House Bill 833 of the 63rd Legislature
    (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg.,     R. S., ch. 220, p. 515) the 1973 amendment      to
    the Uniform   Wildlife  Regulatory   Act, Article  9783-1. Vernon’s   Texas
    Penal   Code, Auxiliary   Laws,    modifies  or repeals  Article  9521-12,
    Vernon’s   Texas Penal Code, Auxiliary      Laws,   the penal statute regu-
    lating the taking of fish from bays and others waters in Calhoun
    County.
    Article    952k12 was first enacted in 1963 to be effective             September   1,
    1964 (Acts    1963, 58th Leg., ch. 230, p* 624).
    Section  1 of the Uniform   Wildlife Regulatory     Act      makes   it specifically
    applicable   to Calhoun County but Sec. 3(c)(6) of the           Act excepts   from the
    term “wildlife    resources”   salt water species    located       in Calhoun County
    and two others.      This Act was first adopted in 1967         (Acts 1967, 60th Leg.,
    ch. 730, p.1959).      By its Sec. 15, Article   
    9521-12, supra
    , expressly
    was saved from repeal.
    Thus, prior to the enactment     of H. B. 833 in 1973, fishing for salt
    water   fish in the waters   of Calhoun County was regulated     by Article  9521-12
    and not by Article   978j-1.
    House Bill 
    833, supra
    , contained     three sections.  Section 2 amended
    Article  947 of the then existing   Penal Code.    Section 3 was the emergency
    clause.   Only Sec. 1 is pertinent.    It amends the Uniform    Wildlife Regu-
    latory Act (Article  
    978j-1, supra
    ) by adding a new Sec. LA as follows:
    p.   1418
    The Honorable      Clayton   T.   Garrison,        page   2    (H-306)
    “Sec.   IA.    (a) Except as provided    in Subsection  (b)
    of this section,      this Act applies to all coastal waters
    in this state with respect       to fish, aquatic life,  and
    ‘marine    animals.
    “(b)  Subsection  (a) of this section             does not apply
    to shrimp and oysters     or to Harris,               Galveston,
    Chambers,    and Victoria   Counties. ”
    House   Bill   833 did not contain    any repealer          clause.
    In Attorney   General  Opinion H-112 (1973) we determined        the Legis-
    lative intent to be that the exclusion     of shrimp and oysters     of Subsection   (b)
    applies   only to those coastal waters     to which coverage    of the Regulatory
    Act was extended by Subsection       (a), i.e.,   to those not previously   covered.
    The coastal     waters  of Calhoun County were not covered        under the Regu-
    latory Act and, in our opinion such coverage         was extended to those waters
    by House Bill 833.
    When there are two statutes dealing with the same general      subject,
    the rules of interpretation     are well established.  Thus, in  -53
    Tex. Jur. 2d, Statutes,    Sec. 186, p* 280. et seq., with ample support
    in the cases,  it is said:
    “It is a settled rule of statutory     interpretation
    that statutes that deal with the same general             subject,
    have the same general        purpose,     or relate to the
    same person or thing or class of persons             or things,
    are considered       as being in pari materia      though
    they contain no reference        to one another,     and
    though they were passed at different          times or at
    different    sessions   of the legislature.
    “In order   to arrive  at a proper   construction      of a
    statute,    and determine   the exact legislative     intent,
    all acts and parts of acts in pari materia        will,   there-
    fore,    be taken, read, and construed      together,     each
    enactment      in reference  to the other,   as though they
    p.   1419
    The Honorable    Clayton   T.    Garrison,   page   3   (H-306)
    were parts of one and the same law.         Any con-
    flict between    their provisions   will be harmonized,
    if possible,   and effect will be given to all the pro-
    visions   of each act if they can be made to stand
    together    and have concurrent   efficacy.  ”
    Article 
    9521-12, supra
    , deals with the manner in which fish are caught.
    The Regulatory     Act,   on the other hand, is more concerned    with conser-
    vation of wildlife   resources   than in regulating  the manner of their taking.
    We find no inherent     conflict between the two.   They can easily be made
    to stand together.
    We, therefore,    answer your question     that House Bill 833 of the 63rd
    Legislature,    amending   Article   9783-1, Vernon’s   Texas Penal Code,
    Auxiliary    Laws,  did not modify    or repeal Article  9521-12. Vernon’s
    Texas Penal Code, Auxiliary        Laws.
    SUMMARY
    An amendment    to the Wildlife   Regulatory  Act making
    it applicable to coastal waters     of Calhoun County did not
    modify or repeal Article    9521-12. Vernon’s     Texas
    Penal Code, Auxiliary     Laws,    which governs the manner
    of taking fish in those waters.
    Very   truly    yours,
    Attorney       General   of Texas
    DAVID M. KENDALL,          Chairman
    Opinion Committee
    ps 1420
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H-306

Judges: John Hill

Filed Date: 7/2/1974

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017