OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable R. A. &Inert, Chairman 

Civil Jurleprudsnoe Coumlttee 

State Senate 

AU6tin, Texas 

WQ 68m WBI+U 

pu nqwrt otlp' oplalon am 

Bill lo. ZSS4, *hlsh ljratide 

oitier having a population 

tants. St 4066 not 

pa66 till6 bill 

laws \mdec A&lo1 

u1ree of lotal and 6p60hl 

Btate @onatltutlen. 
Honorable R. A. Weinert, Chairman, page 2 

In detemlnlng the purpoeo of the bill, ye may 

oonlrult the legislative journalr. Red RLler Rati- . 

Feraum 109 Tex. 287, 206 S. W. 923, Hurt Y Oak Downm, 

66 8. W.'(28) 294 (appeal dismissed, 97 9. W.'(2d) 673). 

When this blll was before the House of Repre6entatIve6, the 

following statemsnt wa6 made by Repreeentatlve Dlokson of 

Bcxar County: (House Journal, pagea X576-1377) 

"Thle Is an explanation of my vote on H. B. No. 334, 

which la a looal law affecting the Health Department of 

the City of San Antanlo, TexaE. ThIe bill 1s maas to 

q&yto San Antonis by uee of the populatlon braoket 

devloe, and it undertakes to regulate the affalrr of no 

other olty. Governor O'Danlel hae! oondemned this type 

of leglelatlon, and Attorney tineral Mann has ruled 

repeatedly that this farm of bill rlo&rter 8eotlon 66 of 

Artlale SI or the Texas ConGitution. In y opinfrpg the 

bill 18 of doubtful eonrtitntlonality md I ham -#ted 

to my eolleaguea fros Bexar Gounty that all auel’blllr, 

aireating only 6an Antonio OP Bexar County, be rererreu 

to the Attorney General for an oplnlon a6 to their valialty 

before theh are enacts& Into law. My aolleaguer have not 

agreed with my ouggeetlan and being outvoted four to one, 

I think that it 16 unralr to bring 8 loaal fight to the 

floor of the Bouse and ask the other Hembers to take 

rides on an lrsue in which they have little or no interest. 

Shoe I as or the oplnlon that b%l.lr of thir nature are 

an abuee or the law-making pouer and aan only eorve to 

clutter up the aourte and oauee further lorr of raspeat 

ror our law8 I can oonrlstently take no part 1.n their 

p866w ma f, therefore, answer a8 'pre6ent and not 

Yotlllg." 

We are unable to think of any r6rsoMb~e relation 

between the objeot of the bill ant? the pepulatlon brackets, 

exaept to make the bill applleable only to the City oi San 

Antonio. The minimum popul.ation requirement dght be emlalned 

on the barls that smaller sitler bo not need to have a Board of 

Health, but oui operate under the general mtatutee providing 

for the appelntment of Health Offloers, See Artialer 4424-4426, 
Honorable FL A. Welnert, Ohalrmam, page 3 

Vernon's Annotated alrll Statutre. Hewver, this explanation 

would make the rxalucllon of altier aontalnlng more than 290,040 

inhabitante purely arbitrary. We are therefore foraed to oonelude that the purpose of the bill wae to olngle out the City 

of 8an Antonio for spoolal treatment, and that the bill Is a 

apeolal law and therefore unoonetltutlonal. Bexar Countr v 

Tynaq, 128 Tex. 223, 97 6. W. (28) 467; North Texas Traction Co. 

v. Bryag 116 Tex. 4%. 294 3. W. 527; Randolnh v. ta e, 

117 Tex.'Cr. 80, 36 S. W. (2&l 484; Smith v. State,'l2: Tex. 

Cr. 431, 49 9. W. (Zd) 739. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY OEi?ERAL OF TEXAS 

OZlWJULOFTEXA6 

APPFl0VD 

OPIHIOH aomuTTBE 

BY BWH awLIRwAII 

.