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 officerslatioe 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@oachallenged oq some ~peolflc ground, 8,onefour 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 e (3) t e bill's

l d provisions

are within the scopeof 1egisiatiM aUthQrity 

### l gd do of ths 8ot violateany oxpressor im lied prohi

~8WlxiqtAoa

of the‘Stats

ef !i tien exas, and It1 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 ordernamed.
That laws muat be certain and definite

to be ialid is fundamental

and this rule is said to requirethat 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; StateVS.,International

and Q. i. $. CO., 179 S.VJ. 867; Bradford

V. State, 180 S.W. 702, and authorities therein

cited. It is net deemednecesaary'to elaborate

on the applicationHon. Tom Martin - Page 2 v-55

of this rule to the bill presented. Sufficeit to say that the terms of the bill shouldpresent no difficulty to the understanding of the Commission

or of E"

rt3onsaffectedthereby,its provisions appearing

suff clently clear to e’nable

i&Commission to properly administer the act and to apprisepersonsinterested in its subjectmatter of their rightsand dutiesand the necessary 3, procedures

regarding

their takingof wild-life In Texas as it is definedin Section15 of the bill. It/is noted that a line was apparently omittedin Section2 between * the secondand third lines. - ', I '. Regarding

the objector subjectof the bill, It is clear that, in accordance with the provisions of Article III, :Sec.

35 of the Constitution of Texas, the provisions are limitedto one generalsubject, namely;the preeorvation

of wild-life

resources

in the State.

. Statod conversely,

the bill includes

no proviaion

that would fall by reasonof its not beingrelevant or gormane to ultimata

objectof the act, even If not epecifitallymentioned

in the title, * c 1

The title,howevor,is virtually a resumeof tho proviaione

of the bill& It ls,stPtod that the coaatituc tionalprovisions(Article III, Section35, supra)roquiring

that the subject

of the bill be 8 title,has a twofoldpurpose. First,it E eolfiodin its s designed

to give noticeto 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 diversein the

fing together

into one bill sub ects r nature

with a view to l

combinng 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& objeptof an act is re uired to be statedin its title. It is not requiredt

5I at a titledbe an Index or set forthin de- ,tail the contents and it is sufficient if the subject is fairlystatedin a mannerthat would directa 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 1.48S.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 satisfies the.require-.

HOG Tom Martin - Page 3 v-55

ing the gener&l object qr eu “an ac TSXEi6” 1 to regulate the could well be adT1

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 tster 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 l-settled in Texas that 9 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

cannotitselfpractically 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 Appealsof Texas in Williams

vb State, 176 SsW* (2) 177, etatbd therule as to the delegating of legislative

authority very clearly

as followel
"The question

of this delegation

of

. authority

has been much beforethe cowtoe and especially

is that true in recentyear6 by the enlarged

powersconferred

upon administrative

boardsand tribunals. Thb generally

accepted

rule governing

suchmatters now appearsto be that a legislative bodymay afterdeclaring a policyand fixing a primarystandard, conferupon bxbcutlve or administrative~officbrs the peweT to fill up the details, by prescribing rules and regula,tions

to spiritof the legls

P remotethe purpose and ationand to carry it' into effect, In such casesthe actionof the Legislature

in giving such rule8and regulations

the force of laws does not vio- ,latethe constitutional inhibition

against delegating

the leglelative

function. The rule finds supportIn Field (Marshall) V* Clark,143 U.S. 649, 12 S. Ct. 495, 505' ;:6& Rd. 294, whereinthe Supreme Co& : (The legislature

cannotde18 ate Its

eower to make a law, but it can mat 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

TherI'are

many !h$sw$!' 'f government

o 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 aboveto the delegation of authority contained

in the Rouse Bill presented, there appears little question

but that the.delegation therein

containednon, Tom Martin - Page 5 v-55

Is valid. The rule-making powergiven to the ConmUsign is for the purposeof “f-illing in the detailof

in the accomplishment

of the conservation of wild-life

in Texae or preventing

its depletiona,The fact-finding power flven the Cormaission $8 am le, P and therm is no consti~ utionalobjection

to the basfe of the aw becoming applicable

on the findine of fact that are rovided **for** in Sections2 and 3, 2 n consonance

with t Re above quotation ample primaryrtandards are fixed for the CoamU* sion s carrying

out the policy stated. t

It shouldbe understood that this opLnionrelates only to the constitutionality of the proposed

delegation of authority

to the Game, Fish and GyaterCommission and not to the necessity **or** advisability

of such delegation, On this point It Is whollywithinthe discretion **of** the Legislature

to determine

whetherthe conservation and

, preservation

of Texaswild-life

can beet be accompliehed by the Leglslature~e enactment

of dAreatand 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 offlcethat the rmltted,

is constitutiona

E roposed

HOUS Bill 223 as sub-

.

‘sill

223 is valid and rovieione it beln ‘tiufefinite it being !i

mited to one subject

which is prop&y expressed in the title its eubject matterbe1 scope of ie iel.ative alone eonst tutiagno uudue

f authority. Very trulyyours* ,AT!l'ORNEY

QENERAL

OF TEXAti 

# ’ Byiikze

Assistant

JL: acm: arc