Mr. Wilson E. Speir, Director 

Department of Public Safety 

5805 North Lamar Blvd. 

Box 4087 

Austin, Texas 78751 

Opinion No. M- 442 

Re: The Validity of Sub-section 4a 

of Section 3 of Article 668733, 

as Amended by Section 1, 

Senate Bill 78 of the 61st 

Legislature, R. S., 1969 

Dear Mr. Speir: 

You have requested our opinion on the constitutionality of Sub-section 4a of 

Section 3 of Article 668733, as amended by Section 1, Senate Bill 78 of the 61st 

Legislature, R. S., 1969. Article 6687b is commonly known as the Texas Driver’s 

License Act. 

In your letter, you state: 

“We would like to have your opinion as to whether there is 

sufficient notice in the caption of Senate Bill No. 78 to make 

constitutional this change in Sec. 4a. We believe that the 

language in the caption ‘amending Section 3, Chapter 173, 

Acts of the 47th Legislature, Regular Session 1941, as 

amended (Article 668713, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes)’ gives 

no notice that the Legislature intended to change Section 4a. 

We therefore believe that Section 4a as amended by Chapter 

350, Acts of the 59th Legislature, Regular Session, 1965, is 

still the law in Texas. ” 

Section 35, Article III of the Texas Constitution, states: 

“Sec. 35. No bill, (except general appropriation bills, 

which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for 

and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall 

contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed 

in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an 

act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act 

shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be 

so expressed. ” 

- 2192 - 
Mr. Wilson E. Speir, page 2 (M- 442) 

The title of Senate Bill 78 of the 6lst Legislature, R. S., 1969, is a8 follows: 

“AN ACT 

relating to certain persons who are exempt from being 

required to have a driver’s license because of certain 

service in the armed forces; amending Section 3, Chapter 

173, Acts of the 47th Legislature, Regular Session, 1941, 

as amended (Article 6687b, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes); 

and declaring an emergency. ” 

Sub-section 4a of Section 3 of Article 66874 as amended by Section 1 of 

Senate Bill 78 of the 61st Legislature, R. S., 1969, reads: 

“4a. A person operating a commercial motor vehicIe, the 

gross weight of which does not exceed six thousand (6,000) 

pounds as that term is defined in Article 6675a-6 of the 

Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, operated in the manner and 

bearing current form registration plates as provided in 

Article 6675a-6a of the Revised Civil Statutes, who holds an 

operator’s license, shall not be required to obtain a commercial operator’s license. ” 

This Sub-section, prior to Senate Bill 78 of the 61st LegisIature, R. S. 1969, 

read: 

“4a. A person operating a truck with a manufacturer’s 

rated carrying capacity not to exceed 2,000 pounds, which is 

intended to include trucks commonly known as pickup trucks, 

panel delivery trucks, station wagons, and carry-all trucks, 

who holds an operator’s license, shall not be required to 

obtain a commercial operator’s license. ” 

In construing the provisions of Section 35 of Article III of the Constitution of 

Texas, the Supreme Court of Texas has stated on numerous occasions that the 

caption of an amending act is not necessarily deficient because it merely 

states that a particular prior law or particular section thereof is being amended 

and does not give further particulars. State v. McCraken, 42 Tex. 383 (1875); 

Gunter v. Texas Land & Mortgage Co., 82 Tex. 496 17 S. W. 840 (1891); 

English & Scottish-American Mortgage & Investmen; Co., Ltd. v. Hardy, 93 

Tex. 289, 55 S W. 169 (1900); Board of Water Engineers v. City of San Antonio, 

155 Tex. 111, 283 S. W, 2d 722 (1955); Schlichting v. Texas State Board of Medical 

Examiners, 310 S. W. 2d 557 (Sup. Ct. 1958). 

- 2193 - 
Mr. Wilson E. Speir, page 3 (M-442) 

However, this rule is not without limitation. The Court stated in Board of 

Water Engineers v. City of San Antonio, supra: 

,, 

. ~ , if the provisions of the law or section to be amended 

involve a subject different from that actually dealt with in the 

body of the amending act, a reading of the former will not 

disclose to the reader the true subject of the amending act but, 

on the contrary, will mislead him as to the latter . . . ” 

Therefore, the Court noted in footnote 3 at 283 S. W. 2d, page 727, the 

following: 

” ‘The courts of this state have held that a reference to a 

number of an article in a code, such as our Revised Statutes, 

is sufficient in the title of an act amendatory thereof, to allow 

any amendment germane to the subject treated in the article 

referred to. English & Scottish-American Mortgage & Investment Co. v. Hardy, 93 Tex. 289, 55 S. W. 169; State v. 

McCraken, 42 Tex. [383] 384. The reason for the holding 

appears to be that the naming of the article to be amended 

directs attention to all of the provisions therein, as the subject of the amending act, and that such provisions can be 

ascertained by reading the article to be amended. However, 

when the Legislature restricts the title of an amendatory act 

by reference to the number in the code of the article amended, 

and announces its purpose to deal with the original bill in 

respect to particular matters therein, it is bound to govern 

itself accordingly, and keep within what it had irself declared 

would be the limits of its proposed action. Sutherland 

Statutory Construction (2d Ed. ), vol. 1, Sub-section 139; 

State v. American Sugar Refining Co., 106 La.553, 31 So. 

181, 186. ’ ” 

Likewise it was held in Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 55 

v. Carr, 372 S. W. 2d 523 (Sup. Ct. 1963): 

“The deceptive feature of the title is thus apparent. 

A reader is misled into believing that the bill will have 

no application to any type of water district except the two 

which are specified in the title, and that the purpose of the 

Act is to establish restrictions with respect to these two 

types of districts. But the intended effect of the Act is to 

prohibit the creation of any type of water district other 

than the two mentioned. ~ . ~ ” 

- 2194 - 
Mr. Wilson E. Speir, page 4 (M- 442) 

In Fletcher v. State, 439 S. W. 2d 656 (Sup. Ct. 1969), the Court held: 

“The main subject of the Act is stat.ed in the caption as 

being that related to the licensing of polygraph examiners. 

The expression of a purpose in the caption of an act relating 

to the licensing of polygraph examiners and the creation 

of a Polygraph Examiners Board fails to give notice that 

embodied in the Act is Section 2 (5) which includes the regulation of all persons who use any device (such as a B & W 

Lie Detector) to test or questi.on individuals for the purpose 

of verifying truth of statements. We therefore hold that the 

language used in the title of the Act is not sufficient to properly advise the Legislature and the public as to the real 

subject of the Act. See Gulf Insurance Company v. James, 

143 Tex. 424, 185 S. W. 2d 966, 970 (1945); Arnold v. 

Leonard, 114 Tex. 535, 273 S. W. 799 (1925).” 

A similar holding is found i,n White v. State, 440 S. W. 2d 660 (Tex. Crim 

1969): 

“The application of the above announced principles and 

authorities to the case at bar is too plain to require further 

discussion. Even the most liberal of constructions will not 

be enough to uphold the act. The language of the 1967 

act clearly imports that the act is to be amended in the 

stated particulars. No fair notice was given of any intent 

to make the drastic and radical changes in the penalty 

provisions that were made or to eli.minate penalties for other 

offenses provided for by the act being amended, and which 

goes a long way in destroying the very effect of the stated 

policy and intent of the overall act. ” 

The title of the amendatory act here refers specifically to exempting persons 

required to have a driver’s license because of certain service in the armed forces, 

The actual subject matter contained in the amendatory act’s Sub-section 4a extends 

an exemption to other persons because of their operation of commercial motor 

vehicles, a subject not mentioned in the title of the amendatory act. Had the 

act’s title omitted the express bmitation “because of certain service’in the armed 

forces”, the subject matter would have been suffi.ciently broad to places a reader 

on notice that the proposed amendment intended to deal with all classes of persons 

who shall be exempt from obtaining a commercial operator’s license. However, 

the title of the amendatory act here is expressly restricted to those persons who 

are exempt because of certain service in the armed forces. Therefore, we conclude 

that the amendatory act’s title does not advise the Legislature and the public as to 

- 2195 - 
Mr. Wilson E. Speir, page 5 (M- 442) 

the real subject of Sub-section 4a of Section 3, as amended by Section 1 of Senate 

Bill 78 of the 61st Legislature, R. S., 1969. As the subject contained in Subsection 4a of Section 3 was not expressed in the title, such Sub-section is void. 

However, the portion of the amendatory act which relates “to certain persons who 

are exempt from being required to have a driver’s license because of certain 

service in the armed forces” is valid. 

SUMMARY 

Sub-section 4a of Section 3 of Article 6687b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, (Senate 

Bill 78, 61st Legislature, R. S. 1969) is invalid, being in violation of the provisions 

of Section 35 of Article III of the Texas Constitution. The title to Senate Bill 78 

gives no notice of an attempt to broaden the category of persons exempt from 

obtaining a commercial operator’s license other than those who will be exempt 

because of certain service in the armed forces. That portion of the amendatory 

act relating to license exemption because of certain service in the armed forces is 

valid. 

y General of Texas 

Prepared by James H. Cowden 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

George Kelton, Vice-Chairman 

Richard Chote 

Linward Shivers 

Neil Williams 

James Quick 

Tom Sedberry 

W. V. Geppert 

Staff Legal Assistant 

Hawthorne Phillips 

Executive Assistant 

- 2196 -