August 17, 1967

Honorable Charles L. Morris Executive Director Veterans Affairs Commission Austin, Texas

Dear Mr. Morris: OpinionNo. M-128
Re: Constitutionalityof House Bill 80, Acts of the 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967, ch. 681, p. 1789, and related questions. By reoent letteryou have requested &n opi#an on the above statedmatter. We quote from your letter as follows:



### “1. I would like to resubmitmy orlglnal request of June 29, 1967, concerning the above captionedmatter in Its entirety. “QuestionNumber 1. We are desirous of knowingwhether House Bill 80 is constitutional, We have observed from reading the caption of the. Act tha.ta.portion.‘ther.eof, .pro.vide.s.

..that? _,,, .contalninga repealing clauserepealing 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: “‘Article3930a,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Statutes of Texas, 1925, as added by Section 1, chapter 495, Acts of the 57th Legislature,Regular Session, 1961, is repealed.’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 thereare aertain otherprovisions in the bod,yof the bill which seem to be In direct conflictwith the caption of House Bill 80. Stated anotherway, the caption of

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

.,

/’ House Bill 80 providesthat the repealing clause shallrepeal only those laws or 'partsof law which,are in conflictwith 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. "QuestionNumber 2. If certainportions of this Act ares

unconstitutionalbecause of a restrictive or defective caption, then I am desirous of knowlng,whether,theremainingpor- : tions thereof are valid. "%uestion:Number 3. If the entire' Act is not'unconstitutional,then on Its effectivedate, 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 connectionwith veter~an,'s, claims. It ismy personal opinion that House Bill 80 does not affect in any way whatsoever the pro- ~. visions of Article 1939a,Vernonls Civil Statutes, since 1939a specificallyconcerns veterans and was passed to assist Texas veterans in obtaining benefits to which theymay be entitled, and it is also noted that House Bill 80~does not refer to or repeal or express repeal of Article 1939a In anymanner whatsoever.".
Pour first question concerns the sufficiencyof'the caption to House Bill 80, Acts of the 60th Legislature,Regular Session, 1967, Chapter681, page 178g9 especiallywhen considered in ligh,tof Section 2 of House Bill.80.

Section 2 of House Bill 80 expresslypurports to repeal in wholesor in part some twenty statutesand 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:
"ANACT
"to amendArticle 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; containinga severab$lltyclause; anddeclaring an emergenay.

The laws expresslyreferred to In Section 2 of House Bill 80 are repealed only to the extent of any conflictsrelating to the fees collectedby county clerks and county recorders.

It is our opinion that this caption Is sufficientand does not contravenethe provisions of Section 35 of Article III of the Texas Constitution. This provision of the Constitutionhas 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 provisionwhich will effectuatethe declared object is valid, even though it is not specificallyqndicated in the caption. ,Johnsonv. Martln, 75 Tex. 33, :12S.W. 321 (1889); Giddin s v San Antonio, 47 Tex. 548 (1877); Doeppenschmidtv. 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 CountyNavigationDistrict, 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 concerningquestion number 1, questionnumber 2 ismoot.

Your third question asks whetherHouse Bill 80 authorizes the county clerks to charge for filing of documents relating to veterans of the armed serviceswho 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 youmeant to ask whether the veteranswould 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 chargedby the various county clerks for performing the services spelled out in the act.

Article 1939a is a special act covering onlydesignated individualsand its effect is to exempt those designated individuals from paying a fee for certified copies of any public record necessary to establish a claimagainst the United States Government arising

-592-/.,:.. Hon. Charles L. Morris, page 4 (M-128)

from service in the armed forces or an act appliesnot 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 intentionof the Legislature to repeal or emends Article 1939awith House Bill 80, as far as county clerks are concerned.

Section 2 of House Bill 80 expressly repeals some twenty other statutesand rules without expresslyrepealingArticle 1939a.

House Bill 80 is a general act andArticle 1939a is a special act, and the general rule of constructlon is to the effect that general acts do not repeal specificacts by lmpllcation'unless such a construction is necessary to Townsend,

v. Terrell, 118 Tex. 463, 1. S.W.2d 10 3 (1929);State v. fivemeaning 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 Preparedby James C, McCoy AssistantAttorney 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-.~ ‘:~
.’

:.