August 17, 1967 

Honorable Charles L. Morris 

Executive Director 

Veterans Affairs Commission 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Morris: 

Opinion No. M-128 

Re: Constitutionality of 

House Bill 80, Acts of 

the 60th Legislature, 

Regular Session, 1967, 

ch. 681, p. 1789, and 

related questions. 

By reoent letter you have requested &n opi#an on the 

above stated matter. We quote from your letter as follows: 

“1. I would like to resubmit my orlglnal 

request of June 29, 1967, concerning the above 

captioned matter in Its entirety. 

“Question Number 1. We are desirous of 

knowing whether House Bill 80 is constitutional, 

We have observed from reading the caption of 

the. Act tha.ta .portion .‘ther.eof, .pro.vide.s. ..that? _,,, 

.contalning a repealing clause repealing all’laws and parts of laws in conflict, to 

the extent of the conflict only, with the provisions of this Act. . . . ’ 

“In Section 2 of House Bill 80 Is found the 

following language: 

“‘Article 3930a, Revised Civil Statutes of 

Texas, 1925, as added by Section 1, chapter 495, 

Acts of the 57th Legislature, Regular Session, 

1961, is repealed.’ 

“In addition there are aertain other provisions in the bod,y of the bill which seem to be 

In direct conflict with the caption of House 

Bill 80. Stated another way, the caption of 

-590- 
Hon. Charles L. Morris, page 2 (M-128) 

., 

/’ 

House Bill 80 providesthat the repealing clause 

shall repeal only those laws or 'parts of law 

which,are in conflict with House Bill 80 and 

then only to the extent of such conflict. .,It 

would appear that possibly some~of the'provisions contained in the body of House Bill 80 

have exceeded the scope of the caption of House 

Bill 80. 

"Question Number 2. If certain portions 

of this Act ares unconstitutional because of a 

restrictive or defective caption, then I am 

desirous of knowlng,whether,the remaining por- : 

tions thereof are valid. 

"%uestion:Number 3. If the entire' Act is 

not'unconstitutional, then on Its effective date, 

August 28, 1967, I am desirous of knowing whether 

the county clerks in the 254 counties of this 

State are authorized to charge for filing documents used in connection with veter~an,'s, claims. 

It is my personal opinion that House Bill 80 

does not affect in any way whatsoever the pro- ~. 

visions of Article 1939a, Vernonls Civil Statutes, 

since 1939a specifically concerns veterans and 

was passed to assist Texas veterans in obtaining 

benefits to which they may be entitled, and it is 

also noted that House Bill 80~does not refer to 

or repeal or express repeal of Article 1939a In 

any manner whatsoever.". 

Pour first question concerns the sufficiency of'the 

caption to House Bill 80, Acts of the 60th Legislature, Regular 

Session, 1967, Chapter681, page 178g9 especially when considered 

in ligh,t of Section 2 of House Bill.80. 

Section 2 of House Bill 80 expressly purports to repeal 

in wholes or in part some twenty statutes and all other statutes 

in conflict with the provisions of House Bill 80, but as to county 

clerks only. The caption of Houses Bill 80 reads as follows: 

"AN ACT 

"to amend Article 3930, Revised Civil Statutes 

T 1925# as amended relating to fees 

zhic?%nty clerks and county recorders shall 

receive for their servlces'containing a repealing clause repealing all laws and parts of laws 

-591- 
Hon. Charles L. Morris, page 3 (M-128) 

In conflict, to the extent of conflict only, 

with the provisions of this Act; containing a 

severab$llty clause; and declaring an emergenay. 

The laws expressly referred to In Section 2 of House 

Bill 80 are repealed only to the extent of any conflicts relating 

to the fees collected by county clerks and county recorders. 

It is our opinion that this caption Is sufficient and 

does not contravene the provisions of Section 35 of Article III 

of the Texas Constitution. This provision of the Constitution has 

been consistently construed to require that the caption to a bill 

state only the general or ultimate object of the bill and not the 

details by which the object is to be accomplished; consequently, 

any provision which will effectuate the declared object is valid, 

even though it is not specifically qndicated in the caption. 

,Johnson v. Martln, 75 Tex. 33, :12 S.W. 321 (1889); Giddin s v 

San Antonio, 47 Tex. 548 (1877); Doeppenschmidt v. E3ZE&3&al 

and G. N. Ry. Co., 100 Tex. 532, TEl S . 1080 (1907) c t 1 

Education Agency v. Independent School*%strict, 152 &e$i&254 

S.W.2d 35’1 (1%3); and Atwood v. Willacy County Navigation District, 

284 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Civ.App. lgbh, error ref. n.r.e.). It is our 

opinion that all provisions of this bill are related to and designed 

to effectuate the ultimate objective of this bill as stated In the 

caption. 

In light of the above discussion concerning question 

number 1, question number 2 is moot. 

Your third question asks whether House Bill 80 authorizes the county clerks to charge for filing of documents 

relating to veterans of the armed services who are now exempt 

under Article 1939a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, from paying a fee. 

Since Article 1939a refers only to an exemption of fee payments ;: 

for certified copies of documents, we assume you meant to ask 

whether the veterans would now have to pay for certified copies 

of such instruments. It is our opinion that they do not. 

House Bill 80 is a general act covering all fees to be 

charged by the various county clerks for performing the services 

spelled out in the act. 

Article 1939a is a special act covering only designated 

individuals and its effect is to exempt those designated individuals 

from paying a fee for certified copies of any public record necessary 

to establish a claim against the United States Government arising 

-592- 
/.,:.. 

Hon. Charles L. Morris, page 4 (M-128) 

from service in the armed forces or an 

act applies not only to county clerks, 

other public officials of this state. 

auxiliary thereto. This 

but to district clerks, and 

Considering the two acts together, it is our opinion 

that It was not the intention of the Legislature to repeal or 

emends Article 1939a with House Bill 80, as far as county clerks 

are concerned. 

Section 2 of House Bill 80 expressly repeals some twenty 

other statutes and rules without expressly repealing Article 1939a. 

House Bill 80 is a general act and Article 1939a is a 

special act, and the general rule of constructlon is to the effect 

that general acts do not repeal specific acts by lmpllcation'unless 

such a construction is necessary to 

Townsend, v. Terrell, 118 Tex. 463, 1. S.W.2d 10 3 (1929); State v. 

five meaning to the general act. 

Humble Oil & R fining Co 187 S.W.2d 93 (Tex.Civ.App. 1945 writ 

ref. w.0.m.); herican Cgal Co. v. Dow Chemical Co., 380 StW.28 

662 (Tex.Clv.App. 1964, writ dismissed). 

SUMMARY 

The'provislons of House Bill 80, Acts of 

the 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967, 

do not violate the provisions of Section 35 of 

Article III of the Texas Constitution. 

Article 1939a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, 

was not amended or repealed by House Bill 80, 

Acts of the 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 

196i'o 

yours9 

ney General of Texas 

Prepared by James C, McCoy 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

-593- 
Hon. Char'les L. Morris, page 

Kerns B. Taylor, Chairman 

W. 0. Shultz, Co-Chairman 

Larry Craddock 

Roger Tyler 

Neil Williams 

John Banks 

STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT 

A. J. Carubbl, Jr. 

5 (M-128) 

.w 594-.~ ‘:~ .’ 

:.