Honorable Jamer E. xilday 

amator, Motor Ttinrrportation mvision 

Railroad ctommisd~n OP TOZWI 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: opinion No. 0445 

Be: Ths vulidity of the anti-pa88 

provisions of senate Bill 427, 46th 

Iwgishtum,'~andthe applicability 

of the anti-@&S8 statutes to QIp1Oy888 

,of th.8 Railroad Ceamission of Texas. 

We hpvu your letter of A&.ast 26, 1939, in which yoUaSk our opinion 

with rsfemnoe~toths Pati+88 provisions of the depvtmental appropriatio8 

bill, beiag Senate Bill No* 427, passed by the 46th Legislatum,and also 

with r8fsmno8 to the a~lioab$lity'of the-anti-pass 8tatIA88~ in g8nsral to 

anploy of the Railroad oommi8sioa of Texas. 

Your,eighth and ninth qu88tions relate to the oon+itutionslity of 

the prOviSiOn of the deprtm8wtal appmpriatiom bill prohibiting 8xy state 

anployee fraan raoeiving 8my psees or uther ftinklag pritilages fnm ay 

transportation ~omp8ny. You a8k ia substance whether this provisioa of the 

appropriation Id11 is valid in visaof the caption of the bill and in viarr 

of the constitutional provision that no bill shall oonWn more than on8 

subject, which shall be expressed in its title. The88 qusstioan .till b8 

answwed first, baoausa w8 believe that the angvws to these questions will 

x&e it uaneoessaryto aasm8r other questions which you hav8 asked in your 

latter. 

The a&-pass provisions of Ssllat8 Bill 427 arcfound in Se&ion 2(f) 

(5), tiioh mads a8 follow8a. 

"Exoept as otherwise author&tad by statute, no State enploy shall :, 

r808ive or us8 any pa8888 or other franking privlleg88 from 8mytraasport& 

tier agtioy, slid 8ny spaploy offending shall b8 inrmediatsly disoharg9,di' 

The f8ot that any tnnsport&io% agwoy kntiingly 8xtsIads pas888 or oth8r 

franl&ng privilegss to any State ~ployss sh8ll o~onstitute sufficiwt grounds 

upoawhioh the right of paid tmnsportation oompuyto do business iathin 

*'State OPII bs forfeifsd, and the Attorney General is hereby directed to instituts proper pn308Oding8 to opncsl said right of NY transportation ag8noy 

so offending." 

The oap&on to S8aata Bill No. 427 reads as,follows: 
Hon. James E.I[ildny-Page 2 (C-445) 

*An Act making appropriations for the support aad maintenanoe'of the 

exsoutive cmd adndniptrative departnWmt8 aad agenoiss.of the State COVW?Ament for the two year period beginriing Septmkr 1, 1939, and smding August 

31, 1941, and for oth8r purposes; and declaring it unlawful for p8rso~i 

8mplooyed in themvsral departments to srgage in political oa81p&gas relating 

to elsction or r88leoticm of any mdidate oi candidates for the head of suoh 

departmrt and any pulaio offioe and pmsoribing prooedum for maoval of suoh 

amployees: and mplcing it lulawful to us8 any State-omd autamoMle in oonneotion with say 08mlmiga relating to pay m8asur88 ia whiohthe particular 

deprtm8nt bywhioh the smploy88 is dir8atly inter88ted sad/or ia behalf of 

ths eleotioa or reelection of say persoa a8 th8 head of suoh departmats; and 

prescribing prooedur8 and penalties for violation of this &t; and pmsoribing oertain other lagulatioas aad restricfions in raspeat; tothe appropriations 

mad8 herein,and deolariag an emsrgmay.* 

It is plalr from a mading of the &ion &at it makes no rsferenoe to 

the fast ihat ths Ml1 oontniur q prohildtion agahst the r&aipt or us8 of 

aqp ~888s or franking priv%leges bgr any stati ~pploy88~ W noti is piv8a in 

the caption that th.8 bill 00~~8 any Suoh subjeat. U8 belieoa therefore that 

this portion ofthe~bill is clearly in +iiol&titi of th8 provisions of Artiole 

S, Section 35 of the Con8titution of Texas which reads as follow8r 

'&so. 35. No bill, (except general appropriation Mlls,rhioh may 8e 

bra88 the vnriou8 s~bjeots cud aooourrts, for and on aooount of whiohmonsys 

ax-8 approptiat8d) shall oontaim more than om subjeot, whioh shall 'be expressed 

ia it8 title. But if 8xy subjeot shall- Qnbraoed in an a&t,whioh shall not 

be expressed in the title, such act shall. be void only a8 to 80 much thereof, 

as sftallnot be 80 expresssd,8 

Sims the title or oaptioa of th8 bill faila to giv8 rea8onabls notioe 

that it ooxkims provision8 relating to the Rlbjsot of the prqhibition of free 

pesses to 8tat8 amploy808, the,Mll is void ia 80 far a8 it relates to th8 

8Ubjeat not Ow98Sed in the title. De Silti) V. State, 06 Tex. Cr. B. 634, 

229 S.H. 542; Arnold v. Leonard, 114 T8xe 635, 273 S.W. 799. 

The anti-p888 provQioa8 Ofti appropriation bill do not ooastituts a 

rqgnlation of the manner im whioh the 8101~8 appropriated thereia shall b8 8xpen&d. If oonstru6d a8 am implied tiendmslf of the'gkerP1 statutes prohibiting th8 issu~ce of free passes %y tr8xaportatio8 sigenoies, said provisions 

would bs invalid sinne a g8;ewral lawmay8otlm Pmsrdedby~provisions of a general appropriation bill. See State v. Steels, 57 T8x. 200; Linda v. Findley; 

92 Tew. 451. 

You are thW8for8 advised that it i8 our OpitiiOi that th8 NtiLppSS protisions of Ssnat8 Bill Noor 427 am unColl8titutional oad of no fores and sffset. 

Siace your qu88tions nmbers three Pnd fivu ?elate to a oomstauotion of 

'The anti-pass provisions of S8nat8 Bill No. 427, on the aosw8ption of their 

validity, and sin88 the88 provisions ar8 in our opinion invalid, it till not 

be necessary for us to answer these questions. 

The remetiing questions in your letter relate to the construction of 

the anti-pass statutes in general, and oall for a oonstruotion of the oivil 
Hoit James E. Kilday - Page 3 (O-445) 

and penal statutes, aside from the provisions of Senate Sill 427* Ia your 

first question you a8k in substance whether the anti-pass statutes dsaouxos 

the giving Of PpSSOS by bu8 line, whethsr opsrated ‘trJr indivdualn, partnerships, or corporations. 

The 01~11 statutes relating to the givixg of free passes ar8 articles 

4005 through 4015; ilWhSiW, of the Rsvissd Civil Statutss. The pexal statutes 

covering this subjeot are Articles 1651 through 1666s of the Porn1 Cods* 

Artiole 4005 of the Revised Civil Statutes provides in pm-t as follows: 

"No steam or elsotrio railway compauy, street railway oompany, imterurbaa raI1wsy oompany or other chartered trsusportation oompaxy, express compauy, 

sleepixg oar oompauy, telegraph oompauy, telephoue oompauy, or person or &ssociatica of persons operating the 8am8, nor aqr reoeiver or ler8se thereof, nor 

any officer, agent, or smployes or reoeiwr of may suoh aompuy in this State 

shall howingly haul or oarry auy propsrty free of charge, or give or grant to 

any person, firm or corporation of prsoms a free pass, .frank, privilege or 

substitute for pay or a subterfuge *ioh is used or which is given to bs used 

instead of the regular fare or rate of transportation or any authority or permit &atsoever to travel or to pass or oonwy or tramsport any person or prop 

arty free, nor sell any transportation for anything except money, or for any 

greater or less rate than in ohsrged all persons under the ssxm conditions, 

over an7 railway ortraasportatlon lines or part of lines inthis State; s 

Your question xnusber oas may be subdivided'into tm questicmsc Pi&, 

whether &tiole 4006 applies to a motor bus liners and seoond; whether said 

Artiole applies to ~dividuals and partnarships a8 well.as to oorporations. 

Artiole 4005 expre8sly prohibits the giving of sny free psl'to be used 

instead of the regular far8 or rate of trak%spoI%atiO8 soYe+ say rail- or 

transportation lines or part of line in this State*' It is our opinion that 

this provision alearly means that free passes shall.aot be graated by any 

traaspertation agenoy, inoluding motor bus line8 as well as railways. 

Artiole 4005 provides in part that "no steam or eleotrio railwsy ouupany, strest railway oompsny, interurban railway compsnyor other chartered 

transportation canpsny . . . or person or assooiation of persoas operating 

the sax&s" shall give free passes. Ia. our opinion this lsnguage was intended 

to aovsr.all transportation agenoies operating under oertifioatss or psrmit8 

of authority of any kiad frau ths State of Texas, whether suohtranspcrtation 

agsnoies are owned and opsrated by individual8, assboiations, partnerships, or 

oorporations. The word soompanys doss not necessarily mean "oorporation." 

.;n the case of Rills v. State, 23 Tax. 295, the Suprcone Court said: 

"The word oompany,is ens of various and very ac#aprshensivs signification, 

and, standing alone, conveys no very definite idsa. It applies to persons acting together for the, prosecution of small or great enterprisas." 
Hon. James E. gilday - Page 4 (O-445) 

In 16 C.J. 5. 647 it is said with reference totthe word "oomponys that, 

'khile frequently and properly used to deaota a oorporation, or.an inoorporat- 

.ed association, it does not neoessarily involve that idea either in common 

speech or at law;". 

The uss of the word "chartered" does not requirs a construction that ths 

statute applies only to corporations. Ths word soharter" is properly used to 

describe any osrtifioates of authority issusd l.y.a governing body* See 14 C. 

J. S. 560. It is thsrefors our opinion that Artiole 4005 of the Revised Civil 

Statutes should ba interpreted to apply to any trsnsportation agsnoy operating 

under permit or oertifioats of authority framthe Stats of Texas or any gcvenmeatal department or OOmsLiSSiOn, 8nd that it should not be limited merely to 

oorporations . 

In your question mmbsr tws, you ask whether it 3s necessary as a oondition for one of the asployees of the Railroad Canmission to ride on a free pass 

on a bus that he be protested by a speoifio statutory authorization or whether 

he may rids on a bus pass if ths existing s&i-pP86 statutes ars silent a8 to 

him. 

Article 4006, supra quoted above, oontains a genersl prohibition against 

the granting of free passes. Article 1661 of thd Fenal Cods prohibits in geaOral the issusncs of sny frss PpsS by sny offioer.or agent of a trsnsportation 

agenay. Article 1655 of the Penal Code provides as follows: 

@Any person, other than the persons excepted by law, who uses such free 

ticket, free pass, or free transportation, frsnk or privilege over any railway 

or other trsnsportation line or sleepdng or express oar, telegraph or telephone 

line mentioned 3n the pmoediag articles of this ohapter, for any distsnoe under 

the watrol and operation of either of said ouinpanias or under their authorify, 

or shall knowingly or wilfully by any msms or d%siss whatsoewr obtaia, use, 

or enjoy frcan any such oompany a less fars or ratethan is chargad, dsmanded, 

oolleoted or reoaived by any suoh mmpsny from 8ny other persoa, fins, l sscoiation of persons or corporations for doing for him, them or it, a like servioa, 

if the trprsportation or sexvies is of a like kind oftraffio or service under 

substwrtially similar oiroumstanoes and conditions, such parsan or such offdoer 

or agent who acts for such oorporttior or oamppqr thus favored, shall bs Pined 

not less than one huudred nor mars than one thousand dollars." 

Article 4006 of the Bevised Civil Statutes sets forth a long list of 

persons to whom free passes may be granted. It is cur opinion that it nas the 

intention of the Lsgislature to prohibit ths granting or use of free passes 

exoept astto oertain specified olasses of persons, and that unless there is 

,speoial statutory authoriaatiom allowing a person to ride on a frse pass, the 

granting of a frse pass to suoh person or ths use of a free pass by himwould 

be a violation of ths law. 

Your fourth and sixth question8 may be grouped together. In these gusstions you ask in substsuos whether the Railroad Cmumission may designate its 

smployses as %mspeotorss in order that th~maytske advantage of the exoep 

tions provided la Article 4OC6, supra, which provides, in part, is follows: 
. l .y. 

Hun. James E. Kilday - Page 5 (O-445) 

"The pmoeding artiols Shall not bs held to prevent any stesm or elsetriot interurban railway, telegraph oanpa~ or chartered transportation oompany or sleeping oar ocssm or the receivera or lessees thereof or persons 

operating sams or the offioers, or agents a~ emnloyees thereof from granting 

or exohauging free passes or free transportation, franks, privileges, substitute* for pay, or other thing prohibited by the various provisions of the preceding artiola to uy of the following nsmed perSOa81 . a . State Railroad 

Cavnissioaers~ Seoretary of the Railroad Commls8ion; Engineer of the Railroad 

Ccemni*sion: Inspsotor of fhs Railroad cammission; Auditor of the Railroad 

Ccunsissioa; . . .s 

Tb find no statutory definition of the word "inspeotor.* Dider Article 

10, Section 1, of the Revised Civil Statutes, the ?ordinary significations 

should bs applied to ti* word "iaspsotor." WCJ further believe that it was not 

the intention of the legislature tc'limit.the right to rsoeivs free psses to 

on iaspsotor, sinoe under Article 10, Seotion 4 of the Rsvised Civil Statutes, 

"The singular snd plural nwnber shall each include the other, unless otherwise 

expressly provided.' It is our opinion that the ccllrnis8ion may by its order 

designate smploy*e*.to perfonsths duties usually perfolmu'ble by an iaspeotor, 

in the ordinary signifioation of that mrd, and that such psrsons, while in the 

aotual exercise of their offioial duties as such~would be -titled to some 

under the exoeptioa stated in Artiole 4006, supra. It is our further opinion 

that persons who do not l otually psrform the duties of an inspector, could mot 

claim to come within the said exoeptioain Article 4006. Referring speoifioally to your sixth question, w8 do not think that the Ccmmdssior, merely ly designating exmniwrs, mpi%er*, the direotor, or others as inspeotor* and 

assigning to them duties usually performable by an inspsotor, could over ocmm 

the PrOViSiollS Of the anti-pI8* StatIltOS. Wb think that before a person so 

appointed could oone within the exoeption~ia Art1018 4006, such appointmat 

and assignmsat must be mad* by the Railroad Conssissioa for the aotual purpose 

of having suoh person psrfons the dutibs of an'inspeotor, and such person mumt 

really perform suoh dutiss. In othertwords, the appointment and assignment 

mu¬ be a subterfuge, mad* forth* purpoee of overcomiag the provi*ions of 

the anti-pass statutes, but must bs made for the real purpose of having the 

appointee perform the duties of u inspeotor* 

In your awe&h question, you a8k whether it is a penal offense for an 

smployee or offioer of the Rotor Trsnsportation Division of the Railroad Cusmission of Texas, other than those speoifioally namsd in the anti-pass statute 

as being persons who may ride on passes, to ride on a pass andths extent of the 

pe=lty* 

&tiole 1655 of the Penal Qde, quoted above, provides that any peraoa, 

.sth*r than those exsepted by law, who us*8 aw free pass, shall bs fined aot 

less than #lOC nor mom than $1000. It is our opinion that this otatuto rl.oarly provides that persons who uss passss without coming under the exceptions 

provided for in Article 4006 of the Revised Civil Statutes, shall be guilty of 

a criminal offense and fined in the smount stated. 
I. 

- . - 

Hcm.Jams E.ICilday -Page 6 (0445) 

very truly yours 

ATTORNEY QENERAL OF TEXA6 

By /s/Jams P. Em-t 

James P. Hart 

A6SISTmT 

JFHtAUbegw 

AFPROVED SEP 2, 1939 

/s/Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GEIWAL OF TEXA6 APPROVED 

Opl.nion Camuittae 

ByBXB 

Chainwx