Aus-rm. TEXAS 

Febrky 27, 1947 

Honorable Tom Martin, Chairman 

Game and Fish Corrmittes 

Rouse of Representatives 

Fiftieth Legislature 

Austin, Texas Opinion V-55 

Re: Constitutionality of 

House Bill No. 223, 

50th Legislature. 

Dear. Sir: I 

In your letter of February 5, 1947, you have roquested an op$.nien Enn this office rslatioe ts the aonstitutiomality of Ifowe bill No* 223, 50th L~(isl~tu,re, 

TherewIth, a copy of th$s bill ua8 submitted~ emI l&asmuch a8 you have undeubtedJ.y retainod.a copy, thlr opinion nerd n,ot bo lmrdono+d w$th ~W%t~tae therefrom. 

. . 

In a consideration of the constitutionality of a 

bill which’hes lrot b@oa challenged oq some ~peolflc 

ground, 8,one four wall-settled constitutional principles are appUoabJ,e and it should here be detanali!od 

2 

ether the bill (1) is saff$ciently certain and d&iin te in it6 terms, (2) pertains to on1 one sub act 

whic]l $,a properly exp~amsed In the tit l e (3) t d e bill's 

provisions are within the scope of 1egisiatiM aUthQrity 

l gd do 

of ths 8 

ot violate any oxpress or im lied prohi 

~8WlxiqtAoa of the‘Stats ef !i 

tien 

exas, and It 1 if 

the bill is within such 16 islative 

2 

authority, whether 

its terms constitute an un ue delegation thereof, Those 

will be specif$,caUy considered In the order named. 

That laws muat be certain and definite to be ialid is fundamental and this rule is said to require that 

anact must be sufficiently plain in Its language to be 

understood b 

Q-4 co. vs. !I 

.t;oa; ‘affected by it, Baltimore & Ohio 

221 U. S. 612; State VS., International and Q. i. $. CO., 179 S.VJ. 867; Bradford V. 

State, 180 S.W. 702, and authorities therein cited. It 

is net deemed necesaary'to elaborate on the application 
Hon. Tom Martin - Page 2 v-55 

of this rule to the bill presented. Suffice it to say 

that the terms of the bill should present no difficulty 

to the understanding of the Commission or of 

E" 

rt3ons affected thereby, its provisions appearing suff clently 

clear to e’nable i&Commission to properly administer 

the act and to apprise persons interested in its subject matter of their rights and duties and the necessary 3, 

procedures regarding their taking of wild-life In Texas 

as it is defined in Section 15 of the bill. It/is noted 

that a line was apparently omitted in Section 2 between * 

the second and third lines. - ', I 

'. 

Regarding the object or subject of the bill, It is 

clear that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 

III, :Sec. 35 of the Constitution of Texas, the provisions are limited to one general subject, namely; the 

preeorvation of wild-life resources in the State. . 

Statod conversely, the bill includes no proviaion that 

would fall by reason of its not being relevant or gormane to ultimata object of the act, even If not epecifitally mentioned in the title, * 

c 

1 

The title, howevor, is virtually a resume of tho 

proviaione of the bill& It ls,stPtod that the coaatituc 

tional provisions (Article III, Section 35, supra) roquiring that the subject of the bill be 8 

title, has a twofold purpose. First, it E 

eolfiod in its 

s designed to 

give notice to the Legislators and the publioof the 

nature of the contents of the bill, and to avoid doceptioa orsurprise' in legislation by preventing the. inclusion of unrelated matter. 

avoid the brin 

Second, it ,ia intended to 

diverse in the f 

ing together into one bill sub ects 

r nature with a view to combin l ng in' 

their favor the advocates of all. 39 Tex, Jur., Sect. 

36, Pea 75-78, and casea cited4 Horack* 

287-291. 50 iirn~ Jur 

3 

Sutherland 

T;~~TA ;ry Construction Sec. 1701, pp. 2 3,2Q6 Section 

., 

case; E' 

SC@. 160 p. 135 ma 

1 

c ted. Onl$ the generai'or ultima& objept of an 

act is re uired to be stated in its title. It is not 

required t 5I at a titled be an Index or set forth in de- 

,tail the contents and it is sufficient if the subject 

is fairly stated in a manner that would direct a person 

of "ordinary, reasonably inquiring mind to tho body of 

the act.e See authorities this'paragraph and Singletoa 

q, State, 111 S.W. 737; Watts Y. State, 135 S.W. 565; - 

Polk v.,State 1.48 S.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 satisfies the.require- 
. 

HOG Tom Martin - Page 3 v-55 

ing the gener&l object qr eu 

“an ac 

TSXEi61 ”

to regulate the 

could well be ad T1 

reaervatlon of wild-life 5.~ 

ed to the first of the present 

title end that thie would obviate the necessity of flad9 

the general eub ect of the bill through the 

i i!! I&WCC 

re atiea of the var OUB phrases. Strictly, the onetitution requires ‘lone eubjeot, which shall be expresaad 

in its title.” 

er ofFl$OrdiY! Leg 

the third factor above mentioned, the pow 

slature to regulate the taking of W.d* 

life in Texas le unqueM,onable. Not snly ie emoh regulation 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 

r 

ragraph) the authority for the enactment of .epet+al 

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 

Is 

rohibltion In the Conetitutlon which would prevent the 

eglelature ~from validly enacting the bill prreented, 

Since the act le deemed to be eufficlently certain 

and definite, limited to one eubjeot and beari 

ficleat title, and within the mope of leglelat ve QU- 

“f a +fthority the only coneideration remalnl 

giving Che’Qame Fish and 0 

Is whether in 

power8 epeclfled, the effec t 

ster Conmlee Y! on the broad 

&rued to be an undue dele 

of the bill night be cen- 

* There la no invariable tes & 

(Ltion of le ielative autheritjt. 

by whlrh t%e delegation.~of 

authority by the Leglslatu?b and particular1 

to make ruleo and rbgulatione (see Heotlona 

the bwer 

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 we 9 l-settled in Texas that 

the Legislature may 

f 

rant tom Boards end Commiseione ’ 

power to make rules 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 Legislature cannot itself practically and efflciently exercise. Trinrmier v; Carlton, 296 S.W. 1070; 

Rhodes v. Tattm 206 9.w~ 115, O'Brien v. Ammermen 

233 S.W. 1019, fiur see V* American Rio Grand Land & 

~;igyfon& 298 S W 649. Willhms ve Stat 

Tie&itt v, &t 

orael&s*v ~drrcll 186 S'W (2~'9~~~ 

of Dallai 242 SSt. 1073. *Citing 

numerous author 1: ties the C&t of Criminal Appeals of 

Texas in Williams vb State, 176 SsW* (2) 177, etatbd 

the rule as to the delegating of legislative authority 

very clearly as followel 

"The question of this delegation of . 

authority has been much before the cowtoe 

and especially is that true in recent year6 

by the enlarged powers conferred upon administrative boards and tribunals. Thb 

generally accepted rule governing such matters now appears to be that a legislative 

body may after declaring a policy and fixing a primary standard, confer upon bxbcutlve or administrative~officbrs the peweT 

to fill up the details, by prescribing rules 

and regula,tions to 

spirit of the legls P 

remote the purpose and 

ation and to carry it' 

into effect, In such cases the action of 

the Legislature in giving such rule8 and 

regulations the force of laws does not vio- 

,late the constitutional inhibition against 

delegating the leglelative function. The 

rule finds support In Field (Marshall) V* 

Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S. Ct. 495, 505' 

;:6& Rd. 294, wherein the Supreme Co& 

: (The legislature cannot de18 ate Its 

e 

ower to make a law, but it can m at e a law 

o delegate a ower to dgtormkno oo8o fact 

gf: ;;~ix~d;ft~h!n&‘ uy& wh&c~c~“~~~~ =a$+‘, 

To deny this would be to sto 

government oTherI'are many !h$sw$!' 'f 

which wise and usefu .legislatlon must dopend which cannot be lcnoWn to the 1eW-adting 

ower, and must. therefore be a subject of 

and detenslnatien outsi& ef the 

s of legislation.lw 

Applying the above to the delegation of authority 

contained in the Rouse Bill presented, there appears little question but that the.delegation therein contained 
non, Tom Martin - Page 5 v-55 

Is valid. The rule-making power given to the ConmUsign 

is for the purpose of “f-illing in the detailof in the 

accomplishment of the conservation of wild-life in Texae 

or preventing its depletiona ,The fact-finding power 

f 

lven the Cormaission $8 am le, 

P 

and therm is no consti~ 

utional objection to the 

basfe of the 

aw becoming applicable on the 

findin e of fact that are rovided for in 

Sections 2 and 3, 2 n consonance with t R e above quotation ample primary rtandards are fixed for the CoamU* 

sion t s carrying out the policy stated. 

It should be understood that this opLnion relates 

only to the constitutionality of the proposed delegation 

of authority to the Game, Fish and Gyater Commission and 

not to the necessity or advisability of such delegation, 

On this point It Is wholly within the discretion of the 

Legislature to determine whether the conservation and 

, preservation of Texas wild-life can beet be accompliehed 

by the Leglslature~e enactment of dAreat and specific 

rules and regulations in the form of law at two year 

intervale or by givin 

contbmpla~bd by House % 

the Commiselon the authority 

ill 223, 

All of the foregoing considered, It Is the opinion 

of this offlce that the 

rmltted, is constitutiona E 

roposed HOUS Bill 223 as sub- 

. 

‘sill 223 is valid and 

rovieione it beln ‘tiufefinite it being !imited 

to one subject which is prop&y expressed in 

the title its eubject matter be1 

scope of ie iel.ative 

alone eonst f tutiag no uudue 

authority. 

Very truly yours* 

,AT!l'ORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAti 

’ Byiikze 

Assistant 

JL: acm: arc