April 11, 1939 

House of Representatives 

46th Legislature 

Austin, Texas 

Gentlemen: 

. ‘. 

.."" : 

:' 

Opinion No. O-563 

Re: Constitutionality of 

-.>Senate Bill 75; 

opinionas 

Jhls~ is.ln reply to y&r request for an 

to' the cdhstitutibnallty of 'Senate Bill 

.. . . 

75, which,request,yas covicated to this Department'. 

by-'letter'd@%d.Mardh 28,'.1939, from Ronorabie R. Emmett 

Morse; S@3+cfz~ ef.the House. . . 

..- . 

lows: 

The bodyef'Mr. Morse's letter reads as fol- 

. 

.~ : 

'1 am attaching hereto a copy of Senate 

BllI 75, tihich seeks to regulate pave1 Bureaus. 

It 3.8. my unaerstiinaiiig.. and thi2 understandIng of 

the.Xoiise that .thts bill has been passed twiae and ."' 

on both occasions.has.been declared u&onst'$tutlonal.' ; : 

. . . . . 

"The House just v&ed for uie to ask you for an 

opinion asto.the ~csnst'itutlonality of the attached 

bill. I will appreciate. your attentio,nto this matter as.seen as,ls pesslble..~ 

One of the aardinal and elementary principles in' . 

the fleld.of eonstitutisnai law is that the propri,ety;:'wisdem;.and expediency ef leglslatlon are exc,luslvely-'matters 

Per legls.latlve determlnatlsn~. -Recegnlsing this ijrl&lpJe, 

we IUUS~, therefore, assume that, should the .Legislature enact 'Senate Bill 75~lnto.,law,‘such enactment will be a con--~ 

cluslve determination by a preper'bady as to the.propriety, ~' 

w'isdom, and expediency of such legislation. Thus the sole 

question to be deterinlned by.thls opinion iswhether or-not 

such legislation, if enacted,, will violate any provision of 

the Texas or United States,:Constitutlon. 

. . 

To illust&ai% the difficult'j.es khich attend the 

pr6per ~'~e'termination'..~f.,thls .question, we'quote froia~the 

opinion in Rx barte Martin, 74 i'3.W. (2~)1017, by'the' Court 

,/ 
- - 

House of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page 2 (O-563) 

of Criminal Appeals of Texas, where it is said: 

"It seems well settled that statutes may be 

unconstitutional In their operation as to some person and states of facts when not so as to others." 

Citing Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickwell, 233 

U. S. 304, 58 L. ed. 974, and other cases. 

It Is obvious that at this time we'are unable to 

predict with certainty the persons, If any, who may In the 

future attack this proposed legislation as unconstitutional, 

nor can we acc'urately foretell the state of facts which 

such persons may present to the court-in which such attack. 

Is made. In the absenoe of such knowledge on our part, It 

follows that we'are necessarily unable now to predict with 

certainty what holding-will be made by the court, in the 

event of such an'attack. However, as the courts of last,. 

resort In Texas have heretofore In three instances rendered dealsions--as to the aonstltutidnality of previous acts 

of the Legislature which sought to-reguIate'the same type" 

of business as does Senate Bill 75, we.believe a fairly 

accurate opinion can be rendered'by a comparison of the 

prioracts with.Senate Bill 75 in the light of the decided' 

cases. 

In Ej, p&e Martln;~74~S.'W;:'(2) 1017; by the 

Texas Court of~.Criii&nal,Appeals, "tliii act found in.Ch. 114;. 

Acts -1st'Called~ Session 43rd L@gisIatui?e (@rtienls Annotated Penal aode,:Art'iele 827d) *aaS attacked'by a party who 

conducted's travel'bureau and whose business it was to bring 

together persons owning or'operating automobiles with other 

persons who.dld not'have automobiles ,but who .desired 

expense sharing trips. with the owners of automobiles. 

toAmake 

charge of $1.00 was made by the operator' for the travel 

bureau for bringlng'such parties together. Article 827d of 

the Penal Code forbade any person to engage inthe business 

of the travel bureau unless the persoh In charge of the motor 

vehicle to be used in ~the contemplated trip had first obtained a chauffeur's license, and further required that.said vehicle be equipped ivith license plates and that the owner of 

the vehicle had aomplied with.all of the laws of.Texas in 

connection with the transportation of passengers for hire 

sn'the public roads of Texas., Said Act further required 

that an examination of the public records of Texasbe made~ 

by any one eentractlng with the owner eto..of the,motor vehicle .for a share-expense trip to ascertaln‘whether'such owner 

has properly csmplled with the~law as te chauffeur's license 

and regulatingthe'operationef m&or. vehicles for hire. The 

Court held the act'te be unconstitutional because lt.violated 
Rouse of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page 3 (C-563) 

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

also Section 19, Article 1, Constitution of Texas, which 

latter constitutional provision provides that: 

"No citizen of this State shall be deprived 

of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities or In any manner disfranchised exc.ept by the 

due course of the law of the land." 

In holding Artlcle.827d of the Penal Code unconstitutional, the court used this language: 

: 

_.. 

. . 

'* * *..a8 far as we can tell from the.record 

before us, this:appellant was-.engaged-in the,useful 

and lawful.occupation:of selling lnformation~to. 

private.cltizens, the..conduct of which business was 

neither in fact::orthreat.an infringement ortrespass upon the: health,.safety,;:oomfort, or welfare of. 

the publici :He.drove,no.oars on the public roads 

or bridges.as a business. He made no contracts con- 

..trolling thezhare-.expense~trips..of.his~~ustomers. 

He sold informatlon.by means:of which the.purchaser.: 

thereof was related to.~the seller only 80 far as. ... 

pertained to.the route..expeoted to be.taken by each : _. 

or'.both; He gave..no"guaranty as to the-good or bad : 

character of:,f;he :partlea:thus' putin.touoh4vlth each. 

." - .:other,. or:as'-to...the:kind .or ~quality.of:;t.heir,~vehlcles. 

..'Sions -of said act.unreaeonable.- ~Same~~forbidsthe. :.'. 

..sale- of information by appellant.; unless and.until. .~. 

:. the operator,of the car.lntended,.to ,be'used-on the .., 

share-expense.,trlp shall-have obtalned~a chauffeur's~. 

.or driver's license'in accordance..,with existing laws... 

of Texas.'. The only law posslbly~applicable, known 

to this court, Is-article 6687, Revised Civil Statutes, 

.1925, tihich requires one whose business lsthe~.operatlon 

.of:a car for-hire to take out a license and .pay there- 

';for; in token of which hereaelses a badge which he is 

required to wear when so engaged;-- It,would note require 

.. .~reasoning to,make plain the fact that the immediate.ef- 

;.fect.of attempted application.of this'state.would.be to 

.:put.appellant. out of businessi for the parties to whom 

:he sold.the Information were not hired drivers of public carsengaged in the business of~transporting passengers for hire,.but were andare .prlvate..persons, 

.drlving their own.carz;.ar other private- cars,'88 far 

as this record shows, on their own private business, 

~who for company's sake or econemy's sake wished to form 
House of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page 4 (O-563) 

contacts with other persons by means of which the 

expenses ordinarily Incident to a motor car trip 

might be shared between them, a proposition with 

which appellant has no other connection save merely 

to bring the parties together. The fair effect of 

the requirements of this statute would unquestlonably end the business of appeilant, and this is regarded by us as unreasonable. 

The Court'concluded Its opinion with this language : 

"Being unable to discern any ground of interference with, danger to, or trespass upon, the 

public morals,,health, safety; comfort/or welfare 

of~.appellant8s business as shown to be conducted, 

and believlng the act subject to the objeations above 

discussed, the audgment remanding this appellant ~111 

be reversed and.the appellant ordered dlsoharged. . ..' :.*: ;_ 

. ‘-..:i:. >F~llo&g. the. dea~~~on ~i$f ‘&p&e’ &f&in the 

44th'Legislat~e-at'I~s Regular Sess$on of 1935 enacged 

Chapter 325'; Acts:'ef 1935; which appears as.Vernon's Annotated Statute, Article Qllc. The constltut%onality of Article 

gllc was attacked 1n:the case of Rx paWe Talkington, 104 S;W. 

(26) 495 (TexasXourt of Crlminal.Appeals) by 8 person who was 

in.a-sSmil~,s~t;uatlon.to..the appelXant:in Rx .parte..&artin, 

Article~gllo. among other things required transportation' 

agents-to.seclil'e:lldemaes from the Railroad Commission of 

Texas; made:.lt u&awful-forone to act as a transportation 

agent without first! having secured-such a.license;.required 

the transportation agent to deliver to theLCommlssion and to 

maintain-in force a bond in the'sum of.$l,OOO.OO, In such. 

form as the.Commission may prescribej.!'for the protection, 

use-and benefit of any person or persons who shall suffer loss 

.or damage by reason of the failure of any person or motor 

i carrier,~.threugh whom transportation may~.be arranged or over 

which tickets may be sold'by the.applioant,~to properly fulfill 

any contract er agreement for such transpertatlon wh,lch max 

:.have been-partially er.whelly negotiated by the applicant. 

Artlcle~91U .-.further required the, owner of the motsr vehi'tile 

to file adequate bends ,or insuran~e~pol.icles with the Railroad 

Commlsslon,: and durther requlred.bhe transportation agent te 

request of the owners of.the motor ,vehlcle that such~owners 

exhlbit~to the'agenta certlfldate from the Railroad Coihlssion certifying that auoh owner had~on file In the Railroad 

Commlsslon's:offioe.adequate~-~bonds.and insurance policies. 

,> .' 

- y: .: .: 1. .,. .'. .~ 
House of Representatives, ~Aprll II, 1939, Page 5 (O-563) 

In holding Article gllc unconstitutional, the 

court used the following language: 

"Bearing In mind what we'have above set 

out from the statement of facts showing the 

business of appellant to be confined to selling 

Information, and that he-does not sell or negotiate transportation, nor own noroperate any 

motor vehicle over any highway In this State or 

elsewhere, and does not dictate or suggest the 

terms or conditions upon which the purchasers 

fromhlm.of Information shall contract with each 

other, or whether they go by dirtrsad.or paved,, 

or what route they take, this law seems clearly 

in vlolatlon~of-the,.Fohrteehth..Amendment:to our 

Federal- Cehstitution;. and of Sectioti.lg'of our i. ,. .' 

own Bill of‘Rights,'in:that it pr+l.bit~sthis 

man or any otherengaging:in~atlike ocoupat'ien, : 

upon the sameterms.and~conditlons.,:: because.of;:. . 

requirements:u.nreasonable,~~impossible of..performante, wlthout;.fair. application, and,-prohibit,ive.,:~ 

and surrounds hisattempt to engage.in this 

buslness'with-conditlona.preoedent'and concomitant such as..reveal-themselvesto a casual 

readerof:those partesor.of the statute which. '. 

we have above;quoted..as' be.lng;of.the kit&and..:. .:~ .,

character.~wehave.:just?statedi!I! :Y. ~' 

The..Court.then:proceededjtb:hsl;l“that~'t~e-condltions~~f'~he~bond~~requ~ed.~by:Articl~.~llc.from~transps~tatlon agents were unreasonable,, arbltrary,.and unoonstltutional. The Courtsaid: % 

- . 

.~-.'We have seenno-clearer Casey of abridgment of the.rights and~.priviIeges of the citizens 

'of this~state and of:the'.Uni.ted States, and~the : i 

Invasion-of the liberties of a citizen to engage 

In and' pursue a lawful business thanappears In 

,thls record. We calI.speciaI attention.to the 

authorities cited-in Ex~parte.Martln, supra, and 

the reasoning Indulged." 9. : .' : .. 

In concluding its oplnlon'the Court- discussed 

the.case of Boweli VA Hannah,. ,167 Term:-451, 71 S.W.. (2) 

672, and with respedt~ to.that:case, said: : 

1~ ..~ 

"However, we find ourselve's unable to. " 

agree with our sistercourt.ln~some of Its. 

~~~~aot%?luslons:.~~. We see no ,parity between'the 
House of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page 6 (O-563) 

law applicable to the business of pawnbrokers, or 

dealers In secondhand automobiles, er junk dealers, and the law here under discussion. Nor 

.&re we quite able to fellow the argument that 

because men have picked up and carried hltchhikers who have turned out to.~be robbers, this 

Surnishes any reason to regard as dangerous 

or to hold bad a law against a business.which 

merely brings parties together, who on their 

on responslbllity, and with no limitations 

upen their Investigation and.lnqulry, If desired, may eventually enter open-eyed into an 

agreement te. make.a trip together...- 

~'Tvro~montha after the..deo&sion l.nRx parte'Talk-'- 

Tngton;~the'Supreme Court ef Texas in Martin et al v. Rail;.. 

road Commission; et.al, 106 S;:W. (2) 653, expressly followed the opinion :oS the eourt'of:Appeals.and held Article 911c 

to be unconst~tutSoaal,:notwit~Canding the ,faot that the 

Sln~:if; fact made:by-the trial~courtwere~ extremely faverable to:the':propenents of~the.legislation.:.-- :~ 

Our inqu&&ow turns to an.anal&s.oS the provisions of: Senate.Bill 75 and.a 8omp;irlson of the provisions 

of Senate Bill 75 with.the provisions iif Arti&le 827d of"the 

Penal CodeYand'oS 9110j-Veinon~s~Annotated Givil.gtatutes, 

In an effort te-determine.whether.:~.the ohangedprovialons of 

Senate Bill 75 sati& or Sail to satisfy the constitutional 

ob~ectlons and defects that were urged against 'previous legis- 

~~atfon.iXmd.sustained bythe courts of Texas';.:- Suoh analysis 

of Senate Bill .75,~ in the light.oS the eases'quoted from at 

length in this eplnien, ciimpels us te eenclude that Senate 

Bill 75, If enacted in Its present form and if attaoked-under a.setoS fact8 and. c~oumstaxices.slml.lar Cethose.-pre; 

sented In I& parte. Martin andthe.other cases cited~abeve, 

will be:striaken downby the:oourt-as unoonstitutlonal. 

: :~Thls conohslen Is .reached notwithstanding the 

f$;ethat we.hearClly'agree with the principle announced 

7 

v:RAtes,.260 .S.;.W: 190 (Teds-Court. of QrQnlnal 

Appeals and cases there 'cited,, to..the efieot -that: 

%he authority of the State Government 

to"place restmlctions upon the.exerclse of '.'~ 

lawful vocatron is too well:.settled Per controversy." Citing numerous oases.. 

Then basis for ouroonelus~on is ourbelief that 

the court will-hold ~the~restrlctlons and requirements of 

Senate RI11 75, partloularly these contained In Section 3 
Heuse of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page i' (C-563) 

and 6 thereof, to be 

stltutienal. 

unreasenable and, therefore, unconSe&ion 3 prohibits the selling or offering for 

sale by any perscn etc.; for a compensation of transpertation for passengers ef any character. It further prohibits 

the making of any centract, agreement or arrangement to provide , procure, Surnlsh:car arrange for any transportation, 

directly or indirectly, whether by the selling of.tlckets 

or ef lnfermatlon, orthe introduction of parties, where a 

conslderatlen is received or otherwise. It further prohibits 

any person etci .from heldlng himself aut by advertisement, ,or 

otherwise; .as one whe.performis .any .oS the above prohibited 

aOtZ;.~Seotion 34henprevides that the.pr@lbitlens eS.the 

Aot ShaLLextend Co-aIl persens~etc.~%nI~ss_-suoh.persen,. :~ 

Sirm; oerporatlen, er;assoolatlen holds.a.broker's license 

issued by.the.RaiIroad.Commisaien of Texas> -authorizing, 

such~W%nspertatlen!'; .the;$aot.then Surther prevides~ithatr~ 

"In the..executiin.~S-:any'cea~~aoti,agre.~lslent,:: 

~-~~~~emegt:.f~:~~~l~~~p~vlde,~~~oure~~~~h:,~ 

~r-.~~e-fer'~~rranspor~tien,.o~: passengers~fr~m. 

onei:lnoerpc-rated oily, teanether; whether. directly 

or lndireotly,.and whether.by the.selling qr-givin,. 

ef information;:-sr;'cPtherwise,~lt shall be~unlawSuI 

‘Ser.~such-per~~~n-rt~:employ:apyrperson,.S~~,~c~j?p~r-~ 

atidn;~azz;ae~~ci~~l~n~.o~~ating.a~.~t~~ vehicIe;or.~ 

veh~~lee~:nh~~~r;:~~oh:.is :net:Mie lawf'u$..holder .&S.. 

an erreotive.'oertlSloat~jor'~c~nvenleno,e~ and:~ne&sK 

slty Issued by the Railread Wmulsslen ofTexas? 

.: , 

: ~ ..;;. ;',... .~ .A( 

Section 3:sf:the.:Act.furbher p&i&s, th&., 

,. ., ,. 

%&h&g herein o&t&&d .shali‘ in any. ,j:, '~ 

~~~r~;afSect,the.rights QS private individuals-':. 

as a mere lncldentto travel whe are net.,oarriers,~: 

r0r hire..to.enter~ints-agreements~or.arrangements 

rer trans&%aticPn-en a share-expense plan where : 

in suoh:negeti%tl+s srarrangements. the services 

ef a:.br&er,' asherein~~deflned;. :de:'net;lntervene 

-tar are..nf&~wed I!..~ I 

. 

. :' .: 

Seotion~6 provides-that np lioense~sha$l issue by 

~the.Commlssion~:nor shall a~ny,lioense~remaln In pgroe, unless 

the broker shall have furnished a bsnd,er other security ap- 

-proved by.the .Commlssien,..ln such formand amount as .the..~., 

Cemmission~may prescribe oendltlened .Serthe. pr,eteotlonsS 

the -general~ubll~:and~.whic.h will insure financia~Yresponsibllity for. ali: acts oSsaid~~broker~- for.,whloh su?h7. broker:..,: 
Rouse of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page 8 (C-563) 

would be legally liable, "and further conditioned to recWre 

the supplying of authorized transportation and authenic Information in accordance with contracts, azreements or arrangements therefor with authorized carriers, authenticated copies 

of which contracts shall be filed.wlth the Railroad Commlsslon.” 

The effect of Section 3, in our opinion, is to 

prohibit the holder of a properly issued broke,r's license 

'from performing any act which directly or Indirectly arranges for, procures or provides transportation for another 

‘unless such arrangement etc. for transportation Is made with 

a-person; firm or aerporatlonregularly and lawfully engaged 

In the transportation of padsengersferhlre, as ,etidenaed I 

b;g.a.'c~tlfleate':ef:aonvenienae::and necessity Issuedfby the. 

Railroad Commisslen ef !Pexas..~:SeatIon-6 exempts.prIvate IndIvlduals'-from the.prohlbitlons:sf- the Aatonly-when the Bervlces'of'a.broker'de. not Intervene or are-netused.~. -Thus 

Senate Bill 75makes it unlawful for any person;'whether 

holdIng'a~brekerts .lIcense,or net;4x+asslst In bringing 

persens‘tdget~~,-fer~$hit-p~pose:ert-making~share-.expense 

tsurs,:'a& such-.bIll::fWther makes..It~.unlawful~fer anyprlvat+Individual whe~desIres~:to.majse~a shre-expense.,teur to 

use the~'servIaes'of:a breker;: :.If'the.language used In Seation 3.Is-net Intendedto have-the .meanIng we have.asarlbed 

to It, %gG?n-'we areiat a loss 'te:understand.the:meanIng of 

such'lan&a&~and In suah'.event; we;T.sf-.necesslty;;.wonld .be - 

required toheld~that Se&Ion 3 is.v~id;becauae;;ef:uncertainty, amblgulty and:v&ueness.' ~- 

The aendltlon ef the bend required by Section 

6 of theYbIll makes a llaensed broker liable fer the fulfillment of any transpertatien centract or arrangement even 

though his aontract er arrangement~Es ,independently made by 

a motor owner and a~traveler.and.'even though the%brsker takes 

no part In the~maklng ef said 'aentract a&her than te.lntroduce the-partles'whe make .such aontract. 

It is' cur ep&n that the'ceurts. t&h &uck 

down as~unacPnstlCntIena1 8276 .sf.the:Penal Csde and Article 

911a of Vernsn's Annotated Civil Statute wlll.reach the 

same conclusion with respect te Senate Bill 75, If an at- 

'tack Is ,made: thereon by perssns. whs are able.te.prove that 

the'conduct of ~their business .Is free:.fr9m.Bhe~evils,~irregularltles, and'abuses'.that are eutlined%n Sectlen 15 of' 

Senate Blll75. We express thls~-opinion.because we believe 

that the~affeet"er‘thd..previ~~;en-or Se&Lens 3.and'.6 sfl 

Sex&e Bill 75 .will.be;he~d,byi~he;cc~w?ts ts be subject te 

the'. same constlbu%isnal- &jectIsns:-and defects~that were : 
House ofsRepresentati.ves, April 11, 1939, Page 9 (O-563) 

condemned in Ex part& Martin and in Rx Parte Talkington, 

as revealed In the opinions of those cases which we have 

quoted at length. 

We are also of the opinion that Section 11 of 

the Act'ls subject to attack as being unconstitutional. 

Section 11 makes It a misdemeanor for any person to 

violate or fall to comply with Senate Bill 75 or any rule, 

reRulation. order or decree of the Commission promulgated 

under the.terms of the Act. Punishment for violation is 

fixed by fine of not less.than.$$OO.OO and not more than 

$200.00, and+he.*lolatlons occurring'on each day are declared to be.a sepaxiPte offewe... .~e&.l~n 3 of the Act.. 

prevldea that.the Comm%sslo~:"shall~.prescrlb$ .such Feassriable:miles-iand .regalatlsiis.as.~y:beifermd.neces$arg.". : 

1Yowhere.In;iSeaate.B~~1,7~.fs previelen made foly.the giving 

of notlce:as*.to:.the~..ruJes and.regulatlsns.to.be: pr~mul-:~ 

gated by%he Commlsslen;:nor 1s any.llmltatlon.:or~restrlc~~. 

tlon placed upon.~the+~autherity.:to.promulgate rulesand Te-.. 

gulatlons 'other ~than-that::auch..rules~~shall.~be~reasopabl~~~', 

In our opinio~Sectlon~~Pr:lp.lt;s .&?esent form is yesid,;'b+, 

cause:.it ~~elates~the~well~~settled:csnstltutlenal~requiye-tment:.that,beforei:the;laielatlon:of~ruJes promulgated.%by a: 

Commlsslon.or.:other:regulatery body.&. the.&vernment 

can be-made a penal~~oaffenaej.~~reasonable 'notice must: 

be given of such rules and the act or emission atand+-:. ~~ 

ned must be definedwith reasenable certainty by the~Leglslature. Thls'prlnclple~~s~well expressed in M. K. & T. Ryi. 

Co. v. State, 100 Tex. '420, 100 S.W. 766, by the Supreme 

Court.:bf Texas~:.and =Ex';parte Leslie, 223 s. w. 227 by 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In the case last cited, 

the court said: 

~~~"A~dompleteii law, If penal in its effect, 

-must define the act or emisslen denounced as .' 

criminal with some degree of certainty. And 

if by the law one is, as In the present case, 

commanded ts de some affirmative act, due 

process of law requires that he be given reasonable notice as. a predicate to hls..punish-~:,. 

merit f@r failure to comply wlth;.the~idemand&i _ 

In cenferrlng upon an instrument of government, 

such as the live steak sanitary commlsslen, 

the power to make rules, the nonobservance of 

which censtitutes a criminal offense, it is 

deemed necessary that the Legislature define 

the power and place limitations upon the authsrlty te premulgate rules, ts the end that 

they may not be laaking in the essential.ele- 
Rouse of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page 10 (O-563) 

ments of a law denouncing an offense.! citing 

numerous cases. 

We, therefore, answer your inquiry as to 

the constitutionality of Senate Bill 75 by stating that, 

In oup opinion,- such bill in its present form will be 

held by the court to be unconstitutional. 

~. In conclusion we will state that we have 

received a great deal of Information and aSSistanCe 

from written briefs furnished to Us by lawyers, notably 

Mr. T. S. Christopher, who have had previous experience 

in lltigatlon lnv&lvlng the CQnstitUtionality Qf the 

1933 and 1935 Acts, .which are referred Co 3.n th5.s 

Qpinisn:,.~In order that there may'be'no confnsien with. 

raspeat tQ,.the saope Qr this opinion, we will further 

state we believe it to be settled beyond the possibility . . 

Qr doubt that.the operation Or a. travel: bureau 1s.a 

bnalness which can prqperly. be.regnlated.by~the Leglslature;':;if:the LeglsXature deems..regnlatiQn desirable. 

The.efrect t3r this opinion is s$mply 80:state..that,. :.. : 

in:aur epMen;~~the~methQd and means;af*regulatlen pro-~ 

vlded'fer':lh SectlQns'3, 6 and 11;:Senate Bill'.75,-will.. 

be held ts be':Unreasenable and nncQnstltutisnal by.the 

courts whlah stiruak dtiwn the previena leglslatl0n referrefl.t0.~, 

2. yQursi:*ery ..&y;~~ :' " .~ ~~ "

.Awam op m:: 

..; 

By /s/Robert i3. Kepke 

-Rebert E. Kepke 

REKrBTrzt : Assistant 

APPROVED! 

/a/ Gerali .O. Ma&x ,.. ~, 

AT!lDRNEY NDJERA& OF~~TMBS