Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

Dear slrz
This le ln rep tter 0r ;Tun
\d 6th,
rsquesttng our opllllon itutionFi11t7and
rEdidit of 11.B. eo5 by the Legislature
5 of the Code o?
Crlainal Fro00 e title to the
aat under cons to the article
o? the aode is in the ialla-
t its first oalled
, supra, by ass-
MS, Qeneraland Speoial L ws.
ared unconstitutionalby this
Ion 1~0.0-25, renderea~onJanuary 11,
was held to be defeatire because the
the purpose of
all a8 bei% deoeptire.
The capttoh a? B. 3. 205 does not have such
tioee. It speclfisa the revision and artiole to be amendeb,
without lnafoatingthe particulars of the changes to be
made by the amendment. This has been aeeepted by our
oourts with the'rawoni~ that the namlag of tb artiolm
to be amended dlreots attention to all of the provl8iona
therein, as the subject of the arending sot, and that
auoh provisions aan be the set to
be amended. See ICat2v. State, 7 130, and
authorities thered sited.I.In t&e ease before us the
provlsiona of Artlale 1055, C. C. P., 1925, mere in
effeot, dlreotedattention to in the title of the act
as the subjeot of the amending aot. We quote from the
Katz ease:
*The oourts of this state have held that
93 Ter. $239;55 S. I?.109; State v. IbeCracken;
48 Tex. ss4.- (uudersoorin&ours).
An examinationof the prorlsionsof Artiole
1055, C. C. P. supra, and ca?parlaonwith Seotlon 1 of
~heBGe~, reveals substantialand material change in
. Prior to amendment the article read:
wArticle 1055. iialfoosts paid offioers,
"The oounty shall be pliableto each
officer and witness barin& east8 in a a&s-
demeanor once for only one-half thereof where
the defendant has satisfied the fine and oosts
adjudged a@nst him in full by labor in the
workhouse, on the oounty farm,on the publio
roads or upon any public works of the oounty;
and to pay euoh haI of such legal coetae
may hsve.been so taxed, not lnoludingO(E
missions, the county judge @hall issue his
wnrrant~uponthe County Treasurer in favor of
the proper party, and the eeme shall be paid
out of the road and bridge fund or other funds
not otherwiseappropriated.*
, ,.c
Tollaalng pamage and aeoutive approval of
.B. B. XiS, aafd axWale now readat
mArtlcle 1035; The eount7 ahall not
bs liable to the offloer and witnew hav-
bg OoStu in a misdemeanor 6~16 where .de-
fenasnt pays hle fine aIIPooets. The
oounty #hall be lfsble for o-half of the
fees of the officer8 of the oourt, v&en
tha defendant falls to pay his fine anU.lqa
hire fiam out la tb4 ootmty jail or &a-
ehargss the ame by rearm of working suah
fine out on the county road5 or on any ocunty
projeat. Ana to pay ruah half of oosts, the
oountg 010x-kshall issue his mrrant on the
County Treasurer in favor of euoh offioer
to be paid out oT the Rodd and Bridge ?und
or other ?unds not otheniae lppmp3lated.*
While substantialacbmges are noted in the tami~-
ology ana provl5ionsof H. B, 1#)5,it ia our opinion the
lubject~treat6.die the so, i.e., half aoets paid offi-
atp under oertain ooondltioaa.Therefoxw,we hold the
option or title 16:sufficimt to meet the oonatltutloml
raqldremnnts.
The emergenap clauee of Ii.B. eO5 18 emoneous
ln etatlng that 6. & 727 of the Forty-fifthSagislature,
which we declared unconstitutional,aontained *the mast
prov%sions of this &t" and "this Eill.....isacre17 a
correction of House Bill No. VE7,*
He do not reason the error6 la the emergemy
olause to vitktt the bill. treqnote froicthe c&se oi
~i85OUri-fhnSW-??eXa8 3% th v. Thasason (CiV, 4p*,
ait ``eQ):280 Se Wm 325:
Qaergena~'olauses dn bills, however, are
not afldedfor the purpone of clarifyingor
deolarlng the intention of the Leglalature,
aorta explain the express Iaaguage of the
aat; but oril7for the purpose of setting
,. .‘
iorth the rm~ao~11forth. l``ps~ton at
the oonatltutionalrule requiring the
bill to be read on three eeparate dav,
qnd for puttlag into 5mmediata 0trbCt
auoh aat whatever be ;ts mope qnd tsnns.w
See also 89 Tax. hr. 827; LloyUs Casualt
Co.~r. Lwi(Civ. App. writ Qismlss~d)~62 6. PO.(24v
497.
An examlnatlonof the body of B. B. 205,
while revealing a 8Ub8taIhialdep,artum from the pro-
r$sions of Artb 1055, C. C. P., 1925 and H. 8. 787,
45th I&g. Reg. seaa., doe8 not d1801OSS any violence
to our fun4wm1tsl km, nor any excess of legialatire
prerogative.
we therefore respeatlullyadvice pou that
it l8 our opinion that H. 3. 805, a8 enacted, It3valid
ti eonetltutional.
YOtLPEV8r5'tnilr
APPROVEDJUN 17, 1939