HE ATTORNSY GENERAL 

OF T-Ens 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 7S711 

December 4, 1969 

Honorable John Allen, Chairman 

House Conservation and 

Reclamation Committee 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. M- 530 

Re: Constitutionality of H.B. 

No. 1056, 61st Legislature, 

1969 (Chapter 438 

::sik79), authorizing tAe 

City of Rouston to promulgate and enforce safety 

regulations on the waterways, channels, and turning 

basins within its jurisdiction; directing the city to 

purchase and maintain fire 

boats; providing that provisions of the bill prevail 

over provisions of the city 

charter in the event of 

Dear Representative Allen: conflict. 

Your recent letter requested the opinion of this 

office as to the constitutionality of H.B. No. 1056, 

Acts of the 61st Legislature, R.S., 1969. 

That bill authorizes the City of Houston to exercise 

certain powers concerning fire protection and related 

activities, makes mandatory the purchase and operation of 

fire boats, would extend the powers of the city beyond its 

corporate boundaries, and provides that provisions of the 

Act will-prevail over provisions of the city charter in 

the event of a conflict. 

-2524- 
Representative John Allen, page 2, (M-530) 

The statute enacted under LB. No. 1056 is a local 

or special law and unconstitutional, for the reason that 

it purports to regulate the affairs of a single designated 

city and to effect a change in that cityrs charter, both 

of which are prohibited by Article 3, Section 56, Constitution of the State of Texas. City of Ft. Worth v. 

Bobbitt, 121 Tex. 14, 36 S.W.2d 476, Hall V. 11 county, 

13. 178 (Tex.Civ.App. lgll), aff‘irmed in Bell County 

v. Hall, 105 Tex. 558, 153 S.W. 121. 

Article 3, Section 56, Constitution of Texas, provides 

in part as follows: 

"sec. 56. The Legislature shall not, except 

as otherwise provided in this Constitution, 

pass any local or special law, authorizing: 

****** 

"Regulating the affairs of counties, cities, 

towns, wards or school districts; 

****** 

"Incorporating cities, towns or 

or changing their charters;" 

villages, 

****** 

"And in all other cases where a general law -. _- _ - 

can be made appllcaole , no local or speczal 

law shall be enacted;......." 

In City of Ft. Worth v. Bobbitt, supra, there is at 

page 472 the following language concerning the effect of 

singling out one city in a statute: 

"We presume that no one would contend, if 

the name 'Ft. Worth' had been inserted in 

the law in place of the stipulation with 

reference to population, that the act 

would be constitutional .. . . . . . 

-2525- 
. - 

Representative John Allen, page 3, (M-530) 

Concerning the attributes of a local or special law, 

Hall v. Bell County, supra, at page 183, made the following 

holding: 

"We have already given reasons for holding 

that it is a local or special law, and we 

now add that, as its sole object was to 

regulate the affairs of Bell County, that 

fact is conclusive proof that it is a 

special law......." 

With regard to the meanin of the word "regulating," 

Hall v. Bell County, at page 1 8 3, declared further: 

"The word Iregulatingl, as used in the 

Constitution, should not be given a 

narrow or technical signification. 

If the result of legislation is to repeal 

or materially change any law controlling 

or affecting the collection, safekeeping, or disbursement of county funds, 

such legislaFion, within the purview of 

the Constitution, is a law regulating 

county affairs........" 

supplied). 

(Emphasis 

In providing that the provisions of H.B. No. 1056 

would prevail over conflicting provisions in the city 

charter, the bill on its face would violate the prohibition of Article 3, Section 56, Constitution of Texas, 

against changing the charter of a city. 

We are not unmindful of a line of cases holding that 

a statute is not local or special, even though its performance is confined to a restricted area, if the persons 

or things throughout the state are affected thereby, or 

if it operates upon a subject in which the people at 

large are interested. L.C.R.A. v. McGraw, 125 Tex. 

;:s;.W.2d 629, 636 (1935). 

268, 

At wood V. wilracy county Nav. 

284 S.W.2d 275 (Te:.Ci 

Gii&n county v. 

A 1955 

Wilson~fl~~>!?*25r 

f 

366r.t.i.&ri%)' 

, 336 S.W.2d 814 Tex.Civ. 

f&is, 426 S.W.2d 

oi;inced, 

8 27 

however, that in view 

-2526- 
Representative John Allen,~page 4, (M-530) 

of the provisions of LB. No. 1056 and the facts under which 

it would operate, the bill is clearly unconstitutional as 

a local or special bill within the prohibitions of 

Article 3, Section 56, Constitution of Texas. 

SUMMARY 

Chapter 438, Acts of the 61st 

Legislature, R.S., 1969 (H.B, NO. 1056, p, 

1479), is unconstitutional under Article 

3, Section 56, Constitution of Texas for 

the reason that it is a local or special 

law seeking to regulate the affairs of 

a city and to effect a change in that 

city's charter. /7 

C. MARTIN 

General of Texas 

Prepared by James S. Swearingen 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

George Kelton, Vice-Chairman 

John Reeves 

Bob Flowers 

Alfred Walker 

Bill Corbusler 

MEADE F.GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-2527-