Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1947 )

Aus-rm. TEXAS
Febrky 27, 1947
HonorableTom Martin,Chairman
Game and Fish Corrmittes
Rouse of Representatives
FiftiethLegislature
Austin,Texas OpinionV-55
Re: Constitutionality of
House Bill No. 223,
50th Legislature.
Dear.Sir:
I
In your letter of February5, 1947, you have ro-
questedan op$.nien
Enn this officerslatioets the aon-
stitutiomality of Ifowe bill No* 223, 50th L~(isl~tu,re,
TherewIth, a copy of th$s bill ua8 submitted~ emI l&as-
much a8 you have undeubtedJ.y retainod.a copy, thlr o-
pinion nerd n,ot bo lmrdono+dw$th ~W%t~tae therefrom.
..
In a considerationof the constitutionality
of a
bill which’hes lrot b@oa challenged oq some ~peolflc
ground, 8,onefour wall-settledconstitutional princi-
ples are appUoabJ,eand it shouldhere be detanali!od
ether the bill (1) is saff$cientlycertainand d&ii-
n te in it6 terms, (2) pertainsto on1 one sub act
2
whic]l$,aproperlyexp~amsedIn the title (3) tde bill's
provisionsare within the scope of 1egisiatiM aUthQrity
lgd do ot violateany oxpressor im lied prohi tien
of ths 8~8WlxiqtAoaof the‘Statsef !iexas, and It1 if
the bill is within such 16 islativeauthority,whether
its terms constitutean un2ue delegationthereof, Those
will be specif$,caUy consideredIn the order named.
That laws muat be certainand definiteto be ial-
id is fundamentaland this rule is said to requirethat
anact must be sufficientlyplain in Its languageto be
understoodb .t;oa;‘affectedby it, Baltimore& Ohio
Q-4 co. vs. !I 221 U.S. 612; State VS.,Inter-
nationaland Q. i. $. CO., 179 S.VJ.867; BradfordV.
State, 180 S.W. 702, and authoritiesthereincited. It
is net deemednecesaary'toelaborateon the application
Hon. Tom Martin - Page 2 v-55
of this rule to the bill presented. Sufficeit to say
that the terms of the bill shouldpresentno difficulty
to the understandingof the Commissionor of rt3onsaf-
fectedthereby,its provisionsappearingsuffE" clently
clear to e’nablei&Commission to properlyadminister
the act and to apprisepersonsinterestedin its sub-
ject matter of their rights and dutiesand the necessary 3,
proceduresregardingtheir takingof wild-lifeIn Texas
as it is definedin Section15 of the bill. It/is noted *
that a line was apparentlyomittedin Section2 between
the secondand third lines. - ',
I
'.
Regardingthe objector subjectof the bill, It is
clear that, in accordancewith the provisionsof Article
III,:Sec.35 of the Constitutionof Texas, the provi-
sions are limitedto one generalsubject,namely;the
preeorvationof wild-liferesourcesin the State. .
Statod conversely,the bill includesno proviaionthat
would fall by reason of its not being relevantor gor- 1
mane to ultimataobjectof the act, even If not epecifi-
tally mentionedin the title, *
c
The title,howevor,is virtuallya resumeof tho
proviaioneof the bill& It ls,stPtodthat the coaatituc
tional provisions(ArticleIII, Section35, supra)ro-
quiringthat the subjectof the bill be 8 eolfiodin its
title, has a twofoldpurpose. First, it Es designedto
give notice to the Legislatorsand the publioof the
nature of the contentsof the bill, and to avoid docep-
tioa orsurprise'in legislationby preventingthe.in-
clusionof unrelatedmatter. Second,it ,iaintendedto
avoid the brin ing togetherinto one bill sub ects
diversein thefr naturewith a view to combin lng in'
their favor the advocatesof all. 39 Tex, Jur., Sect.
36, Pea 75-78,and casea cited4 Horack* Sutherland
T;``TA;ry Construction Sec. 1701, pp. 233,2Q6 Section 1
., Jur SC@. 160 p. 135 ma
287-291.50 iirn~
case; cE'ted. Onl$ the generai'orultima& objept of an
act is re uired to be statedin its title. It is not
requiredt 5Iat a titledbe an Index or set forth in de-
,tailthe contents and it is sufficientif the subject
is fairlystated in a mannerthat would directa person
of "ordinary,reasonablyinquiringmind to tho body of
the act.e See authoritiesthis'paragraph and Singletoa
q, State, 111 S.W. 737; Watts Y. State, 135 S.W. 565; -
Polk v.,State 1.48S.W. 311; Focke ve State,144 S.W.
267, 39 Tex. &r,, Sec. 45, pp* 96, 98. Certainly,the
title of this House Bill No, 223 satisfiesthe.require-
.
HOG Tom Martin - Page 3 v-55
ing the gener&l object qr eu
“an ac to regulate the reaervatlon of wild-life 5.~
TSXEi6” 1 could well be ad T1 ed to the first of the present
title end that thie would obviate the necessity of flad-
the general eub ect of the bill through the I&WCC
9 atiea of the var i OUBphrases.
re Strictly, the i!!oneti-
tution requires ‘lone eubjeot, which shall be expresaad
in its title.”
the third factor above mentioned, the pow
er ofFl$OrdiY!Leg slature to regulate the taking of W.d*
life in Texas le unqueM,onable. Not snly ie emoh reg-
ulation a proper exercise of the pslice power of the
State to be seed In the publie interest, but there k&00
appears in the’ Gonetltutlon a clear intent that the
Le islature ah+11 have a very broad power relating to
th ! a eubject where in Article III, Section 56 (last
ragraph) the authority for the enactment of .epet+al
r awa In lieu of Renbral laws on the subject of the
preservation of the game and fieh of the Staten iU
given. ?!or has there been found any exprese or’implled
rohibltion In the Conetitutlon which would prevent the
Iseglelature ~from validly enacting the bill prreented,
Since the act le deemed to be eufficlently certain
and definite, limited to one eubjeot and beari“f a +f-
ficleat title, and within the mope of leglelat ve QU-
thority the only coneideration remalnl Is whether in
giving Che’Qame Fish and 0 ster ConmleeY!on the broad
power8 epeclfled, the effec t of the bill night be cen-
&rued to be an undue dele (Ltion of le ielative autheritjt.
* There la no invariable tes & by whlrh t%e delegation.~of
authority by the Leglslatu?b and particular1 the bwer
to make ruleo and rbgulatione (see Heotlona 1: and !i of
the bill) effectuating a statute may be determined*
There $0 an ill-defined line between powers which ere
those which &re not
In recent years the &drT, i! ’
with an inorease $!a oomplbx
eohnital matter6 regerdln which legilslation Baa’
been neceeaary* It appears we9 l-settled in Texas that
the Legislature may rant tomBoards end Commiseione ’
power to make rules f or effectuating general etatuteo,
power to find facts on the ascertainment of whloh a
complete law ehall become applicable, and power which
Hon. Tom Martin - Page 4 v-55
the Legislaturecannot itselfpracticallyand effl-
cientlyexercise. Trinrmier v; Carlton,296 S.W. 1070;
Rhodes v. Tattm 206 9.w~ 115, O'Brien v. Ammermen
233 S.W. 1019, fiursee V* AmericanRio Grand Land &
~;igyfon& 298 S W 649. Willhms ve Stat
orael&s*v ~drrcll 186 S'W (2~'9``~
Tie&itt v, &t of Dallai 242 SSt. 1073. *Citing
numerousauthor1:ties the C&t of CriminalAppealsof
Texas in Williamsvb State, 176 SsW* (2) 177, etatbd
the rule as to the delegatingof legislativeauthority
very clearlyas followel
"The questionof this delegationof .
authorityhas been much before the cowtoe
and especiallyis that true in recentyear6
by the enlargedpowers conferredupon ad-
ministrativeboards and tribunals. Thb
generallyacceptedrule governingsuch mat-
ters now appearsto be that a legislative
body may after declaringa policy and fix-
ing a primarystandard,conferupon bxbcu-
tlve or administrative~officbrs the peweT
to fill up the details,by prescribing rules
and regula,tionsto remote the purposeand
spirit of the leglsPation and to carry it'
into effect, In such cases the action of
the Legislaturein giving such rule8 and
regulationsthe force of laws does not vio-
,latethe constitutional inhibitionagainst
delegatingthe leglelativefunction. The
rule finds supportIn Field (Marshall)V*
Clark,143 U.S. 649, 12 S. Ct. 495, 505'
;:6& Rd. 294, whereinthe SupremeCo&
: (The legislaturecannot de18 ate Its
ower to make a law, but it can mat e a law
eo delegatea ower to dgtormkno oo8o fact
gf: ;;~ix~d;ft~h!n&‘ uy& wh&c~c~“```` =a$+‘,
To deny this would be to sto
governmento TherI'aremany !h$sw$!' 'f
which wise and usefu .legislatlon must do-
pend which cannotbe lcnoWn to the 1eW-adting
ower, and must.thereforebe a subject of
and detenslnatienoutsi& ef the
s of legislation.lw
Applyingthe aboveto the delegationof authority
containedin the Rouse Bill presented,there appears lit-
tle questionbut that the.delegationthereincontained
.
non, Tom Martin - Page 5 v-55
Is valid. The rule-makingpower given to the ConmUsign
is for the purposeof “f-illing in the detailofin the
accomplishmentof the conservationof wild-lifein Texae
or preventingits depletiona,The fact-findingpower
lven the Cormaission$8 am le, and therm is no consti~
futionalobjectionto the Paw becomingapplicableon the
basfe of the findin e of fact that are rovidedfor in
Sections2 and 3, 2n consonancewith tRe above quota-
tion ample primaryrtandardsare fixed for the CoamU*
sionts carryingout the policy stated.
It should be understoodthat this opLnionrelates
only to the constitutionality of the proposeddelegation
of authorityto the Game, Fish and GyaterCommissionand
not to the necessityor advisabilityof such delegation,
On this point It Is wholly within the discretionof the
Legislatureto determinewhetherthe conservationand
, preservationof Texas wild-lifecan beet be accompliehed
by the Leglslature~eenactmentof dAreatand specific
rules and regulationsin the form of law at two year
intervale or by givin the Commiselonthe authority
contbmpla~bdby House %ill 223,
All of the foregoingconsidered,It Is the opinion
of this offlcethat the roposedHOUS Bill 223 as sub-
rmltted,is constitutiona
E.
‘sill223 is valid and
rovieione it beln ‘tiuf-
efinite it being !iimited
to one subjectwhich is prop&y expressedin
the title its eubjectmatter be1
scope of ie iel.ative
alone eonstftutiag no uudue
authority.
Very truly yours*
,AT!l'ORNEY
QENERAL
OF TEXAti
’ Byiikze Assistant
JL:acm:arc