The opinion
The Attorney General of Texas
November 29, 1978
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General
Honorable Reagan V. Brown Opinion No. H-12 6 3
Commissioner
Texas Department of Agriculture Re: Whether the Agricultural
P. 0. Box 12847 Protective Act, prior to the 1977
Austin, Texas 787R amendment, applied to vegeta-
bles which were not listed in the
Act.
Dear Commissioner Brown:
You ask whether it was the intent of the legislature to exclude from
section l(b) of the Agricultural Protective Act, V.T.C.S. article 1287-3,
certain agricultural commodities. You also ask if the Texas Department of
Agriculture can consider an action of license revocation against a commis-
sioned merchant when the complaint is based on a transaction involving
nonlisted vegetables. We note initially that the transaction giving rise to
your question occurred prior to the amendment of the statute and thus our
response is limited to the statute as it existed prior to the 1977 amendments.
All references are to the pre-1977 form of the statute.
Section l(b) of this Act read as follows:
‘Vegetables’ shall include agricultural commodities and
mean any and all of the following enumerated
commodities: asparagus, beans (string, wax or green),
beets (bunched or topped), broccoli (Italian sprouting),
cabbage (for sauerkraut), cantaloupes, carrots
(bunched or clipped), cauliflower, celery (rough), corn
(green), cucumbers (slicing), dewberries and black-
berries, eggplant, endive, or escarole or chicory,
garlic, kale, lettuce, melons (honey ball and honey
dew), mustard greens, okra, onions, parsley, peaches,
pears, peas (fresh), peppers (sweet), potatoes, potatoes
(sweet), radishes, romaine, shallots, spinach, straw-
berries, tomatoes (fresh), turnips (bunched or topped),
or rutabagas, turnip greens and watermelons.
Since it is generally the case that the legislative intention of a statute is
primarily found in the language of that statute, “twlhen the Legislature gives
P. 5005
Honorable Reagan V. Brown - Page 2 (R-12631
a specific meaning to a word or term, that definition controls.” Childers v. State,
202 S.W.Bd 930, 931 (Tex. Crim. App. 19471.
The power to revoke licenses extends only to violations of the Act. Since the
Act was structured to apply only to vegetables falling within the section l(b)
definition, it is our view that a license may not be cancelled for a transaction
Involving nonlisted items since such a transaction would not constitute a violation
of the Act.
SUMMARY
The Agricultural Protective Act prior to the 1977 amend-
ments did not apply to vegetables not listed in the Act. The
Department of Agriculture does not have authority to
consider license revocation actions against commissioned
merchants when the complaint is based on nonlisted
vegetables.
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
Opinion Committee
p. 5006