Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

I
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVER SELLERS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
HOnorable c. lL licholson, chairrnsn
Canittee. on.Nunlclpal and Private Corporations
Houee of Reprerentatlve8, 49th Leglulature
Au tin, Texaa ,.
Obar Mr. RIobolronr Opinion lo. 04432
Rer Constitutionality cg H.B.
Bo. 553 concernleg cansollda-
tlon of a town or village of
:less ehan 5000 population,
( with a c1t.r having more than
5OM) population.
I.
We beg to acknowlMge receipt of your request for
an opinion by this department upon the above subject mat-
ter, a8 r0ii0v8t
"I aa directed bi the Comlttee On Jfunlcl-
pal and &iv&to Co~pom~fiion8 to rend the attached
bU8e aill #O. ,65> t0 m end XUque8t that an
op%nlon be given the~COsualt.tee a8 to the legality,
or oonrtitutional%tj, Qi that motion dealing with
the ret?OrpeOtiVe Or l%tPOaCtiVe provirlon of the
bill contained in th8 third paragraph of Section 1,
~beginnlng cq page 2.
-A>, *m pbslng it vi11 be noted that the bill
in $ectim 2 propose8 to amend a certain article.
Undoubtedlrj:i thl8 sh0Ud be chengsd 80 a8 to mend
the proper chapter. Your oplnlon ln this oonnec-
tlon will al.ao be appreciated."
That portion of Ii. B. Ro. 553 especially pointed out
by you a8 probably be- retrospective, 1s as follovs:
Honorable C, B. Richol8on page 2
%I8 SOotion I8 hereby declared to be retro-
speotlve to the iollovlng extent. All petitions
purporting to be 8igned by quellfled vot8r8, and
pre8Onted to the goveFnIng body and all ordinances,
Pe8OlUtiOn8, nOtIOO8, dOO1aMtIOn8 or &her act8
by the governing body of anr city, tovn or village
aomIng vlthln the applicable p~ovI8lon8 of thI8
section, purporting to be in compliance with the
8tatutoPy provi8I0nr aontalned in chapter 15 of
Title 28 Rev1804 Clvll Statute8 of X925; and any
notice, drolaPatIon, certlfloate or other act
requised to be done or purporting to bave been
done by any nfor, wunollman, ewl88loner,
aldemn, altr seoretarr or city olerk in ccm-
plIaii&S Vith the 8tatUtOm Peqti8ItIon8 Of
-Chapter 15 of Title 28 Revl8ed Clvll Statute8 of
1925; rhall hT0 th8 88me legal effeat a8 it there
had then exI8ted a lav authorl8Ing each act to
have been done and authori8Ing cities, town8 and
villages of 1088 than 5,000 population to con8oll-
date. An7 eleotloa hsld prior to the enaotment of
thI8 sot submitting the que8tlon of con8olldatlon
to the qualified voter8 of oItIe8 or town8 authorized
to consolidate by this act, 8ha11 in all thing8 be
deemed a legal and valid eleotlon a8 if this lav
had been In exi8tence on ~JMB date of 8uoh election;
provided the requirement8 of lav applicable to
aon8olIdatIon of oItie8 and tovns have otherwI8e
been ooapllrd vIth.'
.,, Section 16 of Article I of the State Constitution -
the Bill of Right8 - I8 a8 follovsr
%o bill of attainder, ox po8t facto &v,
retronotlve lav, or any lar lmpairlp the obll-
@AtiOn Of OOiItPaOt, 8ball be made.
We note tbat the bill, a8 above quoted, u8e8 the VOPd
"retrospeotlv8" rather than the vord "retroaotive::. but this
c.an make nc difference 8ince the tvo vordr a8 ured In OQnt
8tItUtlon8 are held t0 be SnOlymoU8. Ralrden v. Rolden,
15 Ohio St. 20 ; O~ar T. Toledo (Ohio) 89 1. B. 12; State v.
P1ea8oIl (H. D. 1 218 If. Y. 154; A8hley V. BPOm (1. c.) 151
9. B. 725; WIlSOn V. HOV ksxico L. dc T. Co. (a. no) 81 Pac.
gg $5; C;``inental 011 co. V, Hontana Concrete Co. (Mont.)
. .
,
Honorable C. E. Nicholson page 3
The vorda retroactive and retrospective lays, within
the meaning O? 8fShtUte8 and aOn8titUtiOn8, mean those that
in retrospect vould affect prior acts, transaatlons, or
rlght8 already acerued giving to 8Ueh a legal effeot dif-
ferent frown vhat it had under the lav vhen they occurred.
State v. Vhlttlsrey Uash.) 50 Pso. 1191 Clearwater Tovn-
8hlp 9. Board (Mloh. 153 1. Y. 824; Keith v. Ousdry (Tex.)
114 3. W. 392; Duok v. Black Diamond cOliOPiO8 (Tan.) 33
3. U. (2) 6. f Amerloan Surety Co, v. Axtell Con any (Tex.)
36 8. N. (2 3 715; Bowing v. Delaware Rayon Co. PDel.) 188
A. 769; Ducey V. Patterson (Cola.) 86 P. 109; ffray v.
CItx of Toledo (Ohio) 89 If, B. 12; Westerman v. Supreme
Lodge K. of P. 94 3. W. 470 (Ho.); Oladney v. Sydnor (MO.)
72 3. W. 554% Turbevllle v. Oovdy (Tax.) 272 3. Y. 559.
CorollarJ t0 What V8 have jU8t said it ?ollovs that
a lav vhlch doe8 not o$Orate retro8peotlvely to a?fect any
vested right of any j%erson 1s not retroactive or retro-
spective, a8 thore tePm8 are u8ed in constitutional lav.
It Is penalsalble, therefore, for a statute to draw
- on or to relate to antecedent faota ln any pertinent and
ooncltltutlonal vay lu the process of making lav, which doe8
,not attempt to disturb exlstlhg vested rights, as above shovn.
Cox. v. Hart (U. 3.) 67 Law Ed. 332; Clearvater Township v.
Board Mlch.) 153 H. U. 8248 Westerrnan v. Su reme Lodge K.
or P. t MO.) 94 3. W. 4701 Oladney v. Sydnor PMO.) 72 3. W.
554l
The ObVioU8 rea8on for the distinction ve have here
noticed 18 that rtatute8 oreating Pight8, obligations or
dUtiO8 aPI8ing entirely pPO8peatlVOlg arfJ not Invalid I3OPely
becaucle they are predicated or fonaulated ln part upon prior
aotr, conditions, situations and the like, for the rlmple
pea8on there i8 no cOn8tItutlonal pPOVl8IoZI iorblddlng 8UCh
an act; whereas there 18 almost universal conrtltutlonal
prohibition against retroactive or retrospective lava
oreating rights, duties or obligations which did not
exist be?oPe. It 18 the latter situation that such con-
8titUtiOlld provisions pPe8crlbe.
-’ This view la but another way o? giving effect to
curative acts of the Legislatum.
Corpus JuPls Secundum thus states the general rule:
Honorable C. E. f?lcholson page 4
"In genenl, vhere there 18 no oonstltutlonal
prohibition, a Isglalature may, by retrospective
statute, CUP8men IPPegUtiPItler, ln prior pro-
ceedlngr vhlah do not extend to Platter8 of jurlx-
dlotlon; and o~dlnarlly it may Patl?y and validate
any pa8t act vhlch it could orlglnally have au-
thoriced, prwlded it still ha8 the power to
authorize it and its authorization doe8 not lmpalr
--V98ted rights. bXQXOnOXpcS88iOll8 Of thI8 rti0
are to the erfect that the L8glxlatur8 may validate
retroepectlvely any proaeedln# whIoh it might have
authorlxed In advance, or may cure-by subsequent
statute vhat It night have dI8pen8Od vith al-
together. 30, 8tatUtO8 Curing defeat.8 in .SCts
dotie, or authorl8lng or aonrlnslng the exercise
of pover8, are valid vhere the Legislature
orIgInally had authority to confer the powers or
authorlxe the sot." - Vol. 16, p. 875-6 1 422.
We are ln sccord vlth your suggestion that the title
to H. 3, Ro, 553 should be changed to read in substance as
fOiiOV8 t
“AH ACT to axkend Chapter 15, Title 28 of the
Revised Civil Statute8 of Texas, 1925."
and 80 on a8 you have it ¶..!Ithe title.
This, ve belleoe, ansvers JOUP Inquiry.
Your8 very truly
ATTORERYQEHHRAL
OF
,,
BY &i
Oale peer
A8818 t.Ult