Authorities supra. Aside from this consideration, this
construction would seem to be the plain meaning of the lan-
guage employed. See also Article 23, Section 8, R. C. S.
1925, which reads as follov~s:
"The following meaning shall be given to each
of the following words, unless a different mean-
ing is apparent from the context:
‘1. . .
"88. 'Preoeding Federal census' shall be
construed to mean the United States Census of
date preceding the action in question and eaoh
subsequent census as it oo~urs.~
The courts in giving this construction to the
phrase and in passing upon the constitutionality of sim-
ilar sots have consistently pointed out the necessity of
so drawing the classification that others may become sub-
ject to the act when they acquire the same characteristics
or qualifications upon which the classification is based.
It would seem that the converse would necessarily follow,
and if those who were once subject to the act should no
longer possess the elements of the olassification they they
are no longer subjeot to the terms of the act.
In Bexar County v.
Tynan, supra, the court said:
"The act does provide that it is to apply
only to counties having more than 290,000 and
less than 310,000 inhabitants, accordin:;to the
last preceding federal oensus. The last pre-
ceding federal census is the census of 1930.
Reference to this census discloses that Bexar
County is the only county which falls within
this class. Therefore Bexar County is the only
.
* ’ Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 3
oountg affected by the bill, at least until an-
other census is taken, which will be in 1940.”
fn Watson v. Sabine Royalty Corporatfon, (C.C.A.
1938, writ refused) 120 S. 5. (23) 938, the court had before
It for consideration Article 274&e, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes, whioh is practically identical in its language
with S. B. No. 442, except that the population bracket and
vqluation is different. The court stated.
t ', .. "Argument is advanoed that the use of the
language 'all counties . . . containing a val-
uation of Seventy-five Mllion Dollars (~75,000,000.00)
or more, are berebg created' then antithere creates
suah counties which at t;ietime the bill was en-
aoted had the $75,000,000. valuation, and which
also had the required population accoraing to the
preceding census. If this construction is plaoed
upon the Act, then such would constitute it a
local or special law. And if such, the Act
would be unconstitutional.because the require-
ments of Sec. 57, drt. 3, Constitution were
not complied with in its enactment." tunder-
soaring ours)
The court refused to give this construction and
it is apparent that the same language in S. B. No. 442
oannot be given the effect of establishing a county equol-
ization district in Gaines County, which had the requisite
population and valuation when the dct was passed, without
any reference to subsequent changes in population or valua-
tion.
In Smith v, State, (Tex. Cr. App. 1932) 49 S. W.
(26) 739, the court had.the following to say with referenos
to a population bracket classification according to the
"latest United States oensu8.'t
"At the time of the enactment of the stat-
ute last mentioned, the latest United States
oensus, which was that of 1920, gave McLennan
County a population of 82,921. It was the only
oounty in the state affected by the provisions
of Senate Rill 105. ch. 29. The census of 1930
disolosed that M&&an County haa a population
or 98,682. Hence the countg, by virtue of the
increased poF;i;liition,
i:iad
oassed beyond t:leOP-
eration of Senate Bill 105, ch. 29, . . ,
”
. . .
,‘
Again, the.effort of the Legislature,
by am&&~ Chapter 29, Acts of the Forty-first
Legislature, First Called Session, after the cen-
sus of 1930 disclosed tiietPlcLennanCounty had by
virtue of incrensed boaulution ns:scd beyond its
operation, to ilola XcLennan County within the
purview of the act, manifests, under the deoisions,
T. M.' Trimblr Page 4
evade the aonstitutlonal inhibition, and, under
the guise of such olassifioation, to enact a
law designed for MoLennan County alone."
It is our opinion that when the ~population of
Gaines County,exceeded the maximum population provided in
S. B. No. 442, Aots Forty-sixth Legislature, according
to the 1940 Federal Census, it t!lerebywas excluded from
the classification therein provided and passed from under
the provisions of the Act and has lost any authority it
might have theretofore had by virtue:of the provisions
of said Aot.
This opinion is not to be construed as an opln-
ion upon the constitutionality of 5. B. No. 442, Acts
Forty-sixth Legislature, Regular Session.
./ Yours very truly
AT!?ORMEYGEERALOFTEXAS
., ,,’ :
By/cl/ Cecil C. Cs&aok
Cecil C. Cammack
,I
Asslstant
CCC:J.&jrb
ATTORNEY GEWRAL OF w
APPROVED OPINION COHMITTEE
BY B%B, Chairman