delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit involves the construction of Article 2756b, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, hereinafter referred to as Senate Bill 274, and Section 5, Article 2922-16, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, (a part of the popularly denominated Gilmer-Aiken Act). Specifically, it was brought by the School District against the Education Agency to compel the Agency to consider the area of the Fort Bliss Military Reservation as part of the School District in calculating and determining the amount of local funds to be charged the School District under Section 16 of Article 2922, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes.
In 1935 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 274, Acts 44th Leg., Ch. 112, p. 299, authorizing and empowering the State Board of Education to establish independent school districts upon any military reservation located within the State of Texas. The pertinent provisions of said Act are as follows:
“Section 1. That the State Board of Education is hereby auth*59orized and empowered to establish independent school districts upon any military reservations, located within the State of Texas upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the State Board of Education and the military authorities; and such districts may be entitled to enumerate its scholastics to share in the State per capita apportionment, and such other privileges as are now granted to independent and common school districts.
“And provided, that wherever in the opinion of the State Board of Education, the number of children resident upon any military reservation is not sufficient to warrant the establishment of a separate school district, that such military reservation shall for the purpose of this Act be included in any other school district under such regulations as the Board of Education may determine. Provided further, that the Board of Trustees of such district shall have the authority to transfer to any other independent or common school district maintaining adequate facilities and standards for elementary, junior or senior high schools as set up by the State Department of Education and Southern Association, any school children who can not be provided for by the district of their residence.
“* * * The laws pertaining to independent school districts shall govern said district so far as the same may be applicable, but the State Board of Education may make such special regulations and orders for the government of such districts as they may deem expedient.” (Emphasis added).
By a unanimous order entered December 4, 1939, the State Board of Education attached the Fort Bliss Military Reservation to the Independent School District of the City of El Paso, Texas, “as a part of said school district; upon filing of written consent of the Military Authorities with the Board”. The order makes no mention of a transfer of children to another district, nor to the “inclusion” of children in another district. Paragraph One of the order recites the power of the State Board of Education to establish independent school districts upon any military reservation upon terms agreed upon between the Board and the military authorities; Paragraph Two recites the power of the Board to include the military reservation in any other school district, when, in the opinion of the Board, there are not a sufficient number of children resident upon the military reservation to warrant the establishment of a separate district upon the reser*60vation; Paragraph Three recites that the trustees of the El Paso Independent School District have made written application requesting the annexation of the military reservation; Paragraph Four is a finding by the Board that there are not a sufficient number of children residing upon the reservation to establish a separate district; Paragraph Five recites that upon the filing of written consent of the military authorities with the Board, “that said Reservation be attached to the independent school district of the City of El Paso, Texas, as a part of said school district,” and Paragraph Six provides:
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the children of legal scholastic age living in the Fort Bliss Military Reservation shall be entitled to be enumerated as scholastics of the State of Texas and share in the State Per Capita Apportionment and such other priviliges as are now granted to independent and common school districts.” (Emphasis added).
The Commanding General of Fort Bliss, at the time, immediately consented and concurred in such action by the Board. At that time Fort Bliss Military Reservation contained an area of 8.98 square miles. No objection to this order, nor appeal therefrom, was taken by any interested party. On July 15, 1949, in response to a telegram sent the State Board by the Fort Bliss Military authorities, the State Board of Education unanimously adopted a resolution which set out in full its order of December 4, 1939, and provided, among other things, as follows:
“WHEREAS, since such proceedings were had the Fort Bliss Military Reservation has been recognized as a part of the El Paso Independent School District of the City of El Paso, Texas;
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, by the State Board of Education in session this, the 15th day of July, 1949, under the authority vested in this Board by Article 2756b, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes (Acts 1935, 44th Legislature, p. 299, Chapter 112) that all Federal owned lands in El Paso County, Texas, included in, composing, making up, or constituting the Fort Bliss Military Reservation be, and the same hereby are, included in the El Paso Independent School District of the City of El Paso, Texas, and same shall hereafter be a part of the El Paso Independent School District of the City of El Paso, Texas, for all purposes and that the children of scholastic age residing on said Fort Bliss Military Reservation shall be enumerated in the scholastic census as being in the El Paso Independent School District and shall be entitled to the *61same rights and privileges as other children of scholastic age residing within said El Paso Independent School District; * * *” (Emphasis added).
This resolution provided it was to be effective when Fort Bliss Military Authorities filed their written acceptance of the terms, with the Secretary of State Board of Education. The Fort Bliss Military Authorities filed this written consent July 16, 1949, and attached thereto a plat prepared by the Post Engineer showing the military reservation to contain 64,720.45 acres, or approximately 101 square miles.
At the time the Federal government enlarged the area of the Fort Bliss Military Reservation, the added area was a part of various school districts in El Paso County, other than El Paso Independent School District. The taking over of this area by the Federal government did not remove such area from the respective school districts, nor did it serve to change the boundaries of these districts. It is true that the state and all of its subdivisions lost all power to tax or control the area and the property situated thereon, except as may be agreed upon by the State and Federal authorities. But for the two orders passed by the State Board of Education attaching and including such area to the El Paso Independent School District, the area would have remained in, and as a part of, those other school districts to which it belonged at the time of the taking over of such area by the Federal government.
In determining the amount of the local funds to be charged to a school district to finance the Foundation School Program under the Gilmer-Aiken Act, a credit is provided for in Article 2922-16, as follows: “in any district containing * * * Federal owned military reservations * * * the amount assigned to such school district shall be reduced in the proportion that the area included in the above-named classifications bears to the total area in the district * * If the orders of the State Board of Education, as above set out, are valid and binding and all of Fort Bliss is included in the El Paso Independent School District, the School District will have a credit of $315,000.00 on its part of the Foundation School Program. The State Commissioner of Education, the State Comptroller and the Central Education Agency, refused to allow this credit, and this litigation resulted. The trial court held the order void and ineffective to make the military reservation a part of the School District for the purpose of computing the charge because (a) the State *62Board of Education had no authority to enter such an order, and (b) Senate Bill 274 was invalid in so far as it attempted to confer such power on the State Board of Education, the caption of the Act not containing such power. On appeal the Court of Civil Appeals at Austin reversed the judgment of the trial court, and rendered judgment for the School District. 247 S.W. 2d 597. The Central Education Agency, et al applied for and was granted a writ of error to review such judgment.
Petitioners assign three points of error and we will discuss these under only two headings as these two points control this cause.
First, it is contended that Senate Bill 274 did not authorize the State Board of Education to transfer territory of a military reservation from one school district to another for local credit purposes. Under this point it is contended that the Senate Bill only authorizes the State Board of Education to transfer children residing upon a military reservation to another school district where .a separate school district is not created on such reservation, and does not authorize a transfer of territoy; therefore, the credit provision of Article 2922-16, which is based upon area, does not apply.
The Act specifically states “* * * wherever in the opinion of the State Board of Education, the number of children resident upon any military reservation is not sufficient to warrant the establishment of a separate school district, (as has been provided for in the first paragraph of this same Section 1 of the Act) that such military reservation shall for the purpose of this Act be included in any other school district under such regulations as the Board of Education may determine.” This language is clear, simple and plain. It gives the State Board of Education power to include the military reservation in another school district. It does not say “may” include the children residing on such military reservation in another school district, but says the military reservation “shall” be included in any other school district. Under the State Constitution the Legislature has the power to provide for the formation of school districts by general law. Live Oak County Board of School Trustees v. North Common School Dist., Tex. Civ. App., 195 S.W. 2d 436, affirmed, 145 Texas 251, 199 S.W. 2d 764; 37 Tex. Jur. 865; Section 3, Article VII, State Constitution. Senate Bill 274 is a general law and not a special law. No contention is made that it is a special or local law. Where a statute is clear and unambiguous it will be *63enforced according to its words. Anderson v. Penix, 138 Texas 596, 161 S. W. 2d 455 (2) ; Decker v. Williams, Tex. Civ. App., 215 S.W. 2d 679, writ refused; 39 Tex. Jur. 163, et seq., 168. We can find no ambiguity in Senate Bill 274, and therefore we hold that the State Board of Education did have the power to include the Fort Bliss Military Reservation in the El Paso Independent School District — unless the Act be unconstitutional as later discussed. Also we hold that under the clear provisions of the Act when such territory was included or attached to the Independent School District the enlarged district was entitled to the benefits of all “laws pertaining to independent school districts”, including the privileges and responsibilities placed upon independent districts by virtue of all the provisions of the GilmerAiken Act. To hold in accordance with the contention of petitioners that it is only the children on the reservation that can be included in another school district, and not the territory of the reservation in which these children reside; and further to hold that the sole and only purpose of Senate Bill 274 (Art. 2756b) is to permit these scholastics to be enumerated and to receive the per capita apportionment from the State school funds, would be to read into the Act words and meaning not expressed by the Legislature. The Legislature said in the Act the district provided for “may be entitled to enumerate its scholastics, * * * and share in the State Per Capital Apportionment and such other privileges as are now granted to independent and common school districts.” Again the Act states: “The laws pertaining to independent school districts shall govern said district so far as same may be applicable, etc. etc.” To uphold petitioners’ contention would be to deny to those children residing upon military reservations the benefit of free transportation, the Foundation School Program, and all other benefits of the Gilmer-Aiken Act in its entirety. We can find no basis for such holding and we believe that such holding would be contrary to the purpose of the Legislature in passing Senate Bill 274. It is further contended that to permit the El Paso Independent School District to receive this credit “would enrich the El Paso Independent School District to the injury of the other school districts of Texas.” That contention is unsound because the Legislature has provided for a credit on the local contribution for “Federal-owned military reservations”, and this area will receive that credit, so the other school districts of Texas will be no worse off if El Paso Independent School District has all the credit, or the credit is divided between El Paso and the other school districts of El Paso County, Texas. It is not the duty of the court to write the laws of our state, but the proper *64function of the courts is to enforce the laws as made by the Legislature. Simmons v. Arnim, 110 Texas 309, 220 S.W. 66, 70; Texas Highway Commisison v. El Paso Building & Construction Trades Council, 149 Texas 457, 234 S. W. 2d 857, 863.
It is next contended by petitioners that if the Act gives the State Board of Education power to transfer military reservations from one school district to another school district, then the Act is void as violating Section 35 of Article III of the Texas Constitution. It is claimed the caption does not state such power and only confers the power to establish a school district wholly on a military reservation, and to include the “children” of such military district in another school district, but does not give any power to include the area of a military reservation as part of another school district.
“The rule is universal that the courts will not declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional, unless such infirmity and vice clearly appears. Indeed this rule is necessary, and evidences that respectful regard in which the judicial should hold the legislative department of our government”. Bendy v. Wilson, 142 Texas 460, 179 S.W. 2d 269, 277, 151 A. L. R. 1217; Koy v. Schneider, 110 Texas 369, 218 S.W. 479, 221 S.W. 880; Cooley on Const. Lim., 8th Ed., pp. 371, 372; Smith v. Patterson, 111 Texas 535, 242 S.W. 749, 750.
“In order to strike down any provision of this Act the Court must be able to point to some specific section of the Constitution which condemns it. The principle is so well established as to call for the citation of no authority that any bill not clearly inhibited by the State Constitution or the higher law of the Federal Constitution may be enacted into a valid law by the Legislature”. Jordan v. Crudgington, 149 Texas 237, 231 S.W. 2d 641, 645(5).
The caption of Senate Bill 274 is as follows:
“An Act authorizing the State Board of Education to establish Independent School Districts upon any military reservations located within the State of Texas, upon such terms and conditions which may be agreed upon by the State Board of Education, and the military authorities; provided such districts may be entitled to enumerate its scholastics, to share in the State per capita apportionment; providing what children may attend such schools; further provided that the children of such military reservations may be included in other school districts; provid*65ing that such children may be transferred to other schools; providing that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction appoint a Board of three trustees for each district so created to be selected from a list of civilians, who are qualified under the general school laws of Texas, who are employed upon the military reservation, providing for the furnishing of a list of such civilian employees, and the term for which such trustee be elected, and providing for the election of school trustees; provided that census be taken of such children within the scholastic age of such district so as to determine the annual apportionment of thei available school fund and amount to which such district is entitled; and providing for the manner of paying such fund; further providing that the general laws pertaining to independent school districts be applicable; and further providing the State Board of Education may make special regulations and orders for the government of such districts as it may deem ex-pédient; and all other laws in conflict herewith are hereby expressly repealed, and declaring an emergency.”
In discussing Section 35, Article III of our State Constitution and the prior provision, Justice Bonner in Stone v. Brown, 54 Texas 330, 343, states the true rule to be that “none of the provisions of a statute should be regarded as unconstitutional where they relate, directly or indirectly, to the "sáme subject, have a mutual connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title. So long as the subjects are of the same nature and come ligitimately under one general denomination or object, we cannot say that the act is unconstitutional.” The courts of this state have uniformly held that Section 35 of Article III should be given a liberal and not a strict construction. Consolidated Underwriters v. Kirby Lumber Co., Tex. Com. App., 267 S.W. 703; State v. Parker, 61 Texas 265; Gunter v. Texas, etc. Co., 82 Texas 496, 17 S.W. 840; Bitter v. Bexar County, Tex. Com. App., 11 S.W. 2d 163; Doeppenschmidt v. International & G. N. R. Co., 100 Texas 532, 101 S.W. 1080; Dellinger v. State, 115 Texas Cr. R. 480, 28 S.W. 2d 537; Davis v. State, 88 Texas Cr. R. 183, 225 S.W. 532; 39 Tex. Jur. 91, Sec. 43. “It would be burdensome if not intolerable to require that the title should be as full as the act itself. The word ‘title’ implies that no such requirement exists. The purpose of the Constitutional provision is merely to reasonably apprise the legislators of the contents of the bill, to the end that surprise and fraud in legislation may be prevented”. Doeppenschmidt v. International & G. N. R. Co., supra. It is not required that the caption set forth a full index to all the contents of the law or *66set forth the full details of the bill. 39 Tex. Jur. 97, Sec. 45. It is sufficient if the provisions of the statute relate, directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have a mutual connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title. 39 Tex. Jur. 91-93, 95, Secs. 43, 44 and 45. See also 50 Am. Jur. pp. 146, 147, Secs. 167 and 168; Id., Sec. 170, p. 149, et seq. and Sec. 173, p. 153, et seq.; 12 Texas Law Rev. 88; 23 Texas Law Rev. 378, et seq.
[ A careful reading of the caption will demonstrate that the purpose of the Act is to provide that those who live on military reservations shall have the benefit of the public school system for their children. It is contemplated that this can be done by the establishment of a school district upon a military reservation when in the opinion of the Board of Education there are a sufficient number of scholastics residing on the reservation to justify such action. When, in the opinion of the Board of Education, there are not sufficient scholastics to justify the establishment of a school district wholly on the reservation, it is the stated purpose of the Act to permit the State Board of Education to include the military reservation in an existing school district. The caption also gives notice that the “children of such military reservation may be included in other school districts.” This necessarily means the inclusion of territory where the children reside and not the transfer of children to other schools because the caption gives separate notice that “such children may be transferred to other schools.”
“Incorporation in the body of an act of the means by which its object may be accomplished does not render the act obnoxious to the constitutional inhibition against bills containing more than one subject. Accordingly an act with one leading subject, which is expressed in its title, may contain appropriate provisions designed or tending to accomplish, effectuate or enforce the general object or purpose of the law. When the title expresses the main subject dealt with in the act, it embraces any lawful means for the accomplishment of the legislative object. It is immaterial that such subsidiary provisions are not expressly mentioned in the title, if they are legitimately connected with the subject expressed. In other words, any provision calculated to carry into effect the declared object of an act is unobjectionable, although not specially indicated in the title.” 39 Texas Jur. Sec. 42, pp. 90-91.
The caption of Senate Bill 274 does not expressly provide *67that when in the opinion of the Board there are not a sufficient number of scholastics residing upon a military reservation to justify the establishment of a school district wholly upon said reservation, the area in such reservation may be included in another school district — as is provided in the body of the bill. We believe that the provision in the body of the bill is not unconstitutional and void, because we believe such provision in the body of the bill is only an appropriate provision “designed or tending to accomplish, effectuate or enforce the general object or purpose of the law”. By our construction off the Act the scholastics on a military reservation will have and enjoy the same “privileges of and opportunities for public free school education as is accorded other children living within the State.” (These quotes are from the Emergency Clause of the Act.)
We do not believe that the provision to include a military reservation in another school district is foreign to such purpose. On the contrary, we think it is germane, incidental to, and a means of carrying into effect the intention of the Legislature as shown by the caption of Senate Bill 274.
We overrule all points of error urged by petitioners. The Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.
Opinion delivered: January 14, 1953.
Associate Justices Garwood and Smith dissenting.
Associate Justice Culver not sitting.