TEZE&~~OIRNEY GENE-L OF TEXAS

Honorable Olan R. Van Zandt Chairman, Civil Jurisprudence Committee Senate of Texas Austin, Texas
Dear Sir: OninionNo. O-462 Rk: The constitutionalityof House Bill No. 632, which provides for the attachment of adjacent territory for zoning purposesby towns of not less tha,nfour thousand lnhabltantswithin counties of not less than three hundred thousandand not more than three hundredand fifty thousand inhabitantsaccording to the last precedingFederal census. We have your letter as to the constitutionality

After careful study and analysis of the bill in questionwe are of the opinion that It attempts to enact a local law and therefore falls within the prohibitionsmade by Article 5, Section 56, of the Constitution of the State of Texas. of March 9 requesting our opinion of the abovementioned bill.

After consulting the last precedingFederal census we find that only one county In the State fallswithin the population brackets fixed In the bill, that county beingDallas County.
In Bexar County v. Tynan, 97 S. W. (2d) 467, the Supreme Court of Texas, speaking through the Commission of Appeals, held unconstitutionalHouse Bill 490 (Vernon'sAnnotated Civil Statutes,Article 3912-B),which provided that .e in counties inwhich the populationwas as much as 290,000 and less than 310,000, according to the last precedingFederal census, the precinct and county officers should retain from fees of office certain named amounts, the result being that in such counties the retained compensationwas greatly~reduced fromwhat was allowed by the prior laws.

At the time said bill was enacted only one county fell within the populationbrackets fixed therein, said county be- .lngBexar County.Hon. Olan R. Van Zandt,March 21, 1939, page 2 o-462

A careful study of the above referred to case, and the authorities therein cited has convinced us that R. B. 632 falls squarelywithin itspurview.

The Court quoteswith approval therein the following language used by the Supreme Court of Arkansas In the case of Leonard v. Road MaintenanceDistrict No. 1, 61 S. W. (2d) 70 and

the In the case of Randolph v. State, 36 S.W. (2d) 484, Court of CriminalAppeals of Texas indicated in dictum In said opinion thatwhere only three counties fell within the populationbrackets fixed in the act In question in that case, it probably offendedagainst the provlslons of Article 3, Section 56, of the Constitution of Texas. The act in question was held unconstitutionalon other grounds but the dictum above referred to clearly indicated the Court's view. 71, as follows: "Therule Is that a classificationcannot be adopted arbitrarily upon a ground which has no foundation in differences of situation or circumstances of the munlclpa7.ltles

placed in different classes. There must be somereasonable relatlon between the situation of munlclpalltlesclassifiedand the purposes and objects to be attained. There must be something * * * which Fn somereasonable degree accounts for the division into classes."

In this bill no distinctlon is sought to be made between urban counties and .ruralcounties generally,but the bill includeswithin Its populationbrackets only the county ofDallas, and is consideredby us to be a purely local bill.

Since the bill In our opinion is unconstitutionalfor the reason above set out,we deem It unnecessary to discuss any other grounds of unconstitutionalitywhich may be embraced in It. Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

.ERS:AMM:wc By s/E.R. Simmons E. R. Simmons Assistant

OF'TEXAS