Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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