;;-. -
AU.STIN. TEXAB
PRXCE XDANlJsL
A--o- klgllst 13, 1947
Honorable Thomas.D. Broad,
Secretary-Treasurer,
State Board or Architectural l&aridness,
Burt Bulliilng,
Dallas, Texas Opinion i\lo~.V-339~ ',
Re: The effect of H. B. 269,
50th Legislature upon
Chapter 274, Acts of the
48th Legislature govern-
ing registration ana ex-
salnation or arohiteots.
Dear Slr:
Your request for an opinion upon the abov?,
subject matter la as follows:
'we rerer to House Bill No, 269 amending
and re-enacting Chapter 274, page 406,
Section 1, Acts or the Forty-eighth Legis-
lature and extending the time for regls-
'tering under this Act without examination.
"The original Act provided that the prac-
tlpe of Architecture at the tine or,appli-
cation be a man's principal means of live-
lihood. It also provided that he be 21
years or age. House Bill No, 269 does not
mention these provisions. Are we topre-
sume that these condl.tibns'~are still in ef-
red ar ,ab8s House Bill.fW3. 209 specifical-
lp take the place of thh original measure
and set aaide those pro*isions which are
not now mentioned in itr*
Section 35 of Art&e III of the Constitu-
tion asclareer
*No bill, except general appropria-
tion bills which may embrace the various
subjects and accounts,‘ for and on account
of which moneys are appropriated, shall
Honorable Thqtnas ti. Broad - Page 2 (V-339)
contain more than one subject, which shall
be expressed in its title. . o .”
Under this section it has been mny times
held that where the title ts a bill is aifirmstively
misleading or deceptive it does not state the subject
within the meaning of the Constitution, and such bill,
if passed by the Legislature is inerreotive. Gulf
Ins. Co. v. James, 185 s. tv. (?a) 966; Walker v. State,
116 s. ;;‘. (2a) 1076; city 0r Cross Plains v. Raarord,
73 9. a. (2a) 1093;‘Sutherland.v. Board of Trustees,
161 9. Yr. 489 (writ rei,)
The title to House Bill No* 269 is as fol-
lows:
“~.n act to amend and re-enact Chap-
ter 274, page 406, Section 1, Acts of the
48th~ Legislature, so that an adtlitional
period is provided in which praaticing
archttects who were practicing on May 22,
1931, may register and receive a certiri-
cate without examination; and declaring
Annemergency.n
It ~111 be noted the title specifically
names ,k’le respect in which Section 1 (the only section
in the origiml act)‘ls to be amended, that is, “so
that aG &iitional period in which’ practicing architects
who were practicing on May 22, 1937, may register ma
recei~ a certificate without examination.*
The act has gone beyond this expressed sub-
ject of amending Cha@ter 274 in that it has amended that
chapter in other respects. In order that this nay be
graphically shown we quote the relevant portions of the
amended and the amending Sections -1 as fo&lows:
action 1 OP Chapter 274: .’
“That any person of good moral char-
acter who, on May 2e, 1937, was practicing
architecture in the..State of Texas, as his
or her principal vocation and haa been so
engage& in the practice of architeoture for
a period of at least six (6) months prior to
May 22, 1937, and whc shall present to the
Honorable Thomas D. Broad - Page 3 (V-339)
Board of Architectural Examiners of
this State an arriaavit~to that errect,
shall be entitled to receivs.from said
Board, . . ."~ (portion underscored is
omittea 1
Section 1 of House Bill NO. 269:
"That any person of good~moral
character, who on May 22, 1937, was
practicing architecture in Texas, x
who was a citizen of Texas and was
practicing architecture in the employ
~~u~~~~~c~ac~~~~n~~~~~ar~~~~~
pract ce of architecture six (6) months
prior to May 22, 1937, and who shall
present to the Board of Architectural
Exeminers or this State an afridavit to
that erreot shall be entitled to re-
ceive from da Board. . . .*(portion
underscored is added.)
we have underscored those portlo& of Chap-
ter 274 which have been Omitted in House Bill No. 2.69,
and likewise those provisions or House Bill 269 that
have been added. Normally an amendment of a statute ten
be made by omissibn as weil as by addition. It cannot
be said that the vortions omitted 'in the Drocess were
insubstantial. Fi'key are of the substance-of the law.
They were written with meticulous care.
We need not decide the question of the er-
feot or House Bill No. 269 upon Chapter 274 of the 48th
Legislature beoause we have reached the conclusion that~
House Bill No. 269, as passed, is void and has no errect
whatever; for which reason, of course, Chapter 274 of
the 48th Legislature remains unarreotea 8s the law.
House Bill 269 of the 50th Legis-
lature, amending Chaptar 274 of the 48th
Legislature with respect to registration
and examination or archlteots La void
.
Honorable Thomas D. :!road - Page 4 (V-339)'
because of a misleading and deceptive
title declaring the purpose and ex-
tent of the amendment proposed.
Yours ver:: truly,
,-
'ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS
BY
0S:wb
.
ATTORNEY
GE&?.@ -
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion