Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1941 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
HonorableWm. J. Tucker, Executive Becretaxy
Oeme, Fish and Oyster Corm31eeloa
Austin, Texas
Bear S:Lrr Opinion lo. O-38
We are pleased to Q
opiaion from thle department
of House Bill No. 186 of
betveen the
the south boundary
tate fIighvay 4 to
t of ray boundary
of the city 1imltr
amoron oountyt
ta or the 01ty
ore oanm later-
de as a neotlng end propagatdng
Its-vlngeddover, ehaahalataaad
other @me vithln vhloh am It &all be unlsv-’
Pul at any time to hunt, teke, shoot OF kilX
any kind or epeclaasof vild fovl herelnebove
mantloned.'
You ask if the boundaries of the b.lqIs@.neW~ attqwt-
ed to be oreated by this hot are suf'flaientin viev of the Pollov-
lng Paots.
Honorable Wm. J. Tuoker, Page 2
Prior to the passage by the State Highway Commission
of Minute No. 16701 on September 26, 1939, Texas State Highway
No. 4 was designated as follows:
-From Texas-Oklahomastate.linenear Perry-
ton via Perryton, Canadian, Wheeler, Shamrock,
Wellington, Childress,Paducah, Guthrie, Asper-
mont; Hamlin, Anson, Abllene, Tusoola, Ballinger,
:Eden,and Menard to Junotion and rrom a oonneotion.
with State Highway No. 41 via Lula, Leakey, Uvalde,
ICarrizoSprings to a-oonnectionwith State Highway
No. 2 near Webb Oity, and then follow State High-
'rayNor 2 to Laredo and from Laredo~via Roma, Rio
Orande, Mission, LaFeria, Rarllngen and Brownsville
to Booa Chioa."
Berore is date, the State Highway Gommission had
ordered thatjall:2tate Highways over whloh are routed United
States Highways were to be numbered and reoorded aooording to
the United S~tt%%@%lghwaynumbers. In the order entered Septem-
ber 26, 1939,:alI. .priororders designatingState Hlghways.were
stiperseded~and canoelled. State Highway No; ~4 was deslgnated
as being fro@ Brownsvilleto Booa Ohica. U&3. Highway No. 83
was reoogaized
..,.as,,.
being as follows:
wBromtho Tezas&klahoiuaState Line near
Perryton, via Pdrryton, Canadian, Wheeler, Sham-
rook, Welllngton,``Childress, Paduoah, Guthrie,
Aspermont;Ramlin; Anson, Ablldne,``soo~a,~Ballin-
ger;.Eden,Menard, Junotion, Leakey, Uvalde, Orystal
City, Carrleb Springs;Webb City, Laredo, Rama, Rio
IGrande,Ylesion, Pharr, and Rarlingen t,oBrownsvllle.w
We are advised oifioially that prior to the passage 0r
these orders by the Highway Oonunission,~therwexisted highway
signs displayingboth the United estatesHighway numbers and the
State numbera. #ollowln8 these orders the,Sta$e number signs
were disoontinued~ohHighways in Texas which had been designated
as United States highways;
Regarding former State Highway No. 4, It appears that
that portion with.whioh we are ooneernedwas oolnoldentwith U,
S. Highway No. 83. 'Inoonsequenoe,by the passage of the order
referred to, State Highway No. 4 from the Texas-Oklahomaline to
Brownsvillewas changed from State Highway of State Highway No. 4
from Brownsvilleto Boca Chioa was not a designatedUnited States
Highway, It remained State Higbwag No. 4.
Honorable Wm. J. Tuokbr, Page 3
: .~:
,. All of the foregalng trampbrad prior to the enaot-
-m&nt af House~Blll No. 186 by.the Fortr-seventhLenielatum.
.’ At the time of the enaotment;State Higbray:No.4 ran from
Brownsville to BomOhloa. It does so at this time. The
boundary line described by Seotion 3’01 House Bill No; ,186
isnot marked as State Highway No. 4; it $a-marked only as
U. S. HighwayWo.,l%i If the highway now laarksdas State
lilghwayNo. C,,asidwhich is now the offluial Stats Highway
No. 4, if oonsideredas thqbouadaryline referred to.&n Sea-
tion 5 of the Act; obviously the -Pgso~iptionof the boundaries*
035ths’gamesauotuarywill ml.
.~@$ .$athe highway now marked as’.StateElghway No.
4 whioh ‘extendsfrom Brownsville to Ema’Chioa to be oonsider-
ed as the bo*dary llde referred to by.tha Legislature in en-
aoting House Bill No.“l86? Obviously~nst. Suoh intent la
oompletelyrebut&ad by ,theother language employed In the stat-
ute. Note-the ~allusionto.“the o-on ,boundary.llne.of Za’tia
and Stam C.ounties to,the South boundary Llnq,of Stats
sd=F
SfcL’7L”;bo whare ‘saidriShtiofeisap,‘bodndary:~.rinterseota
the
We& bountlary bi ~theoity limits of theraltryi.~t~Brownsvi~e,~
z%z ‘~*pliasls~ 0ur.s)~. .%/
lIefieenb~‘~td.‘~siny :aeauxatrhlgbyia$&ap,ill&disolose :.
Only ~bne-hQhwq~as iiiterseoting or o~e~*lnp:bh~%he mnamon
boundary lirre~
of Zapata an6 Starr Ooanti~sir:.,:``ferenoe to the ‘-(
eabmmap will further dlsolose that the presentState ~Illghway ‘~a
No. 4 does not;intereecttha West ~boqn&arp#%he -oltyllsit8.
of Brownsville’;but that ,U. ‘S.Highway Be:,83 .d6ee1 .State‘Uigh- ``!r
way No. 4 intersootsthe boundary of Browncgllle.
It is ,arguedthat.sinobHouse.~B~ll~I&.
‘i86’iaa pan&
statute, it must be striotly,oanstllred,.that
there ie insuffio- r. ,
lent notiae to the public to.,~meet
,the,req~rernentrr
‘of,Oertainty
eesent+l to valid~ityof ,suoh~pena.1enaotment, .-~.:’,’
From T&a&i Jurisprudenoewe quota-The fsl&awlngt ‘?;
“The intention of tha Legislature in en-
aoting a ‘lawis the law Itself, .tha’e,s&no6’of
the law,*,and,*the psirlt whj.ohglves’Ibf.a*to
the enactment; Henoe. the aim and ablest of
oonstruotionis to.asaertainand enforce ,%ha
legislative Intent, and not to defeat,,nullify
or thwart it:
Honorable Wm. J. Tucker, Page 4 ,
"when the-intent
. .ie.plainly
. a. .expressed
. . In
the language or a statue, xc must be given er-
f;;tl;ithoutattempting to oonstrue or interpret
. On the'other hand, when it is neoessary
to oonatrue an aot in order to determine Its prop-
er meaning.,it is settled by a host of deolsions
.tha't
the court should first endeavor'toaaoertain
the legislativeintent, from a general view of
the whole enactment. Suoh intent having b&m
aaoertained,the court will then seek to construe
the statute so as to give effect to the purpose
,ofthe Legislature, as to the whole and each
material part of the law, even though this may
%uvolve a ~departurefrom the atrlot letter of
the law as written by the Legislature.
*This is the fundamental oauon and the
oardiual;primary and paramount rule of aon-
struotion,whioh~should always be oloaely ob-
-sened.aud to whldh all other rules must yield.
mdeed; luthe oonatruotion of olvll enaatmenta,
the,courts are expressly oomanded to *l&ok dlll-
gently for the intention 0r the Legislature,kesp-
.:&ngin vler.at'alltimes the old law, the evil,
~dnd'the``remedy~'*:~
'And,Chisrule is ~equallY-auuli-
:oableIn the ,oonstruotien of penal~statutea.
,-
.-Intenttobe given effeot.--Uudel' the fore-
going rules, when the leglalatlve intentis aaoer-
talned, oris pla,inlymanifest, it is binding upou
the eourte and must begIven effeot if it is leg-
ally poasible'to bo so. To ignore the legislative
Intent and gi+e a~statute a oonstxuotionobviously
oontrary thereto, or to xefussto enforoe a stat-
ute aooording to ve Intent, when
asoertained,Is-. pieme Court to be
van inexcusable dloial,~duty'and 'au
unwarranteh lnt the exeroise of law-
ful le~slative authority.'* (Undarsooringours).
39 Tex. Jur. 166, i90;
See also'Artlole'7,Vernon*8 Annotated Penal Code and
easee alted thereunder.
Prom~MoQuillinos Munloipal Corporations;Vol 1, 28
a., Revised, (281, P. 769 at p. '770,we quote:
*‘,
? ‘.
‘L.
HonorableWm. J. ticker/Page 5
n*** If the deeoriptioeor the boundaries .
in a statute*oannotbe literally applied on aooount
of inaoouraoy,the statute must reoelve a reaeon-
able oonetruotlon,lnorder to oarryinto effeot
the intent of the legielature. A desorlptionthat
gzvea a definite looation or that le~au$f$o.$e~t
for identilioatiimtill be sustained.
In support of the statement-in the te8t,~oltatlonia
made to the oases of P*Pool v. State;93 Blai 378, 112.80. 59;
Douglass v. Harriavills, 9 W.Va. 162, 27 AL Rep. 548.
-0oupledwit&the fact that until the order of September
26, 1939, the hl@may crosslug the oomnon boundary line OS Starr
and 2a:pata~Countles was ofiloially designated and known as State
Highway No. 4, and the further faot that ref'erbnoe to the 8tate
Highway Department:~filolalmap will diaolose no other publio
highway oroselng said county line, and Is oerttilnlythe buly h&h-
wap from auoh lnterseotlonleadin& to the City,of ~Brownaville,w,e
think the language of the statute is no2 so``~xiu@mta$.n
as to make
It impossible t@~dstexml.ne the territory lnt&&ed~t? bb lnoluded.
In tilesanotuary, and that this oonetruotion~'~&nporte with the
manirest Intent 'ofthe statute. Thereior‘e, lt'~isour opinion that 'I
the motion oi..the4ot.:undor oonsiderationLsY~sUd; that the
bonndarle#. o$.thqL:b3.x$
sanotuary ars dsfinit@$ asoertalnableam ~'
the Ao’r, 8houJ.dbti:qqmstrued
as though ths,Le@~lature,hadwritten ?:
wfitsd Statea &&#kay 83" in akl plaees where:by mistake the
words *State Highway 4* were actually used.
Youa very trtily
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
BY
A#Lltant
BWZRS
APPROVED AU0 22, 1941
s/ Gerald G. h@nn
ATl!ORNlUGENERALOFTEXKi
APPROVED OPINIONCOMMITl?EE~WB CHAIRMAN