April 11, 1939

House of Representatives 46th Legislature Austin, Texas

Gentlemen:

. ‘

. .."" :

:' OpinionNo. 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 RonorabieR. Emmett Morse; S@3+cfz~

ef.the House. . . ..- .

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

. .~ :

'1 am attachinghereto 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 declaredu&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 elementaryprinciples in'

. the fleld.of eonstitutisnai law is that the propri,ety;:'wisdem;.and expediencyef leglslatlon are exc,luslvely-'matters Per legls.latlve

determlnatlsn~.

-Recegnlsing

this ijrl&lpJe,
we IUUS~,

therefore,assume that, should the .Legislatureenact 'Senate

Bill 75~lnto.,law, ‘such enactmentwill be a con--~ cluslve determination by a preper'bady

as to the.propriety, ~' w'isdom,

and expediencyof such legislation. Thus the sole question to be deterinlned by.thls opinion iswhether or-not such legislation,if enacted,, will violate any provisionof 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 CriminalAppeals of Texas, where it is said:

"It seems well settled that statutesmay be unconstitutional

In their operationas 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 predictwith certaintythe 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 personsmay present to the court-inwhich such attack. Is made. In the absenoe of such knowledgeon our part, It follows that we'are necessarily unable now to predictwith 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 instancesrendered dealsions--as

to the aonstltutidnality of previousacts of the Legislature which sought to-reguIate'the same type" of business as does Senate Bill 75, we.believea fairly accurate opinion can be rendered'bya comparisonof 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 togetherpersons owning or'operating automobiles

with other personswho.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 contemplatedtrip had first obtained a chauffeur'slicense, and further required that.saidvehicle be equippedivith license plates and that the owner of the vehiclehad aompliedwith.all of the laws of.Texas in connection

with the transportation of passengersfor 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,motorvehicle .for

a share-expense

trip to ascertaln‘whether'such owner has properlycsmplledwith the~law as te chauffeur'slicense and regulatingthe'operationef m&or. vehicles for hire. The Court held the act'te be unconstitutional because lt.violatedRouse 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 provisionprovidesthat:

"No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty,property,privilegesor 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 businesswas 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.asa business. He made no contractscon- ..trolling

thezhare-.expense~trips..of.his~~ustomers. He sold informatlon.by means:ofwhich the.purchaser.: thereofwas related to.~the seller only 80 far as.

... pertainedto.the route..expeoted to be.taken by each : _. or'.both;

He gave..no"guaranty as to the-good or bad : characterof:,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,ofthe car.lntended,.to ,be'used-on

the .., share-expense.,trlp shall-haveobtalned~achauffeur's~.
.ordriver's license'inaccordance..,with existing laws... of Texas.'.The only law posslbly~applicable, known to this court, Is-article6687, Revised Civil Statutes, .1925, tihich requires one whose business lsthe~.operatlon .of:acar 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,wouldnote

require

.. .~reasoning

to,make plain the fact that the immediate.ef- ;.fect.of

attemptedapplication.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~transportingpassengers for hire,.butwere 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 formHouse of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page 4 (O-563)

contactswith other personsby means of which the expenses ordinarilyIncidentto a motor car trip might be shared between them, a proposition with which appellanthas no other connectionsave merely to bring the parties together. The fair effect of the requirements

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

The Court'concluded Its opinionwith this language : "Being unable to discern any ground of interference

with, danger to, or trespassupon, the public morals,,health, safety; comfort/or welfare of~.appellant8s

business as shown to be conducted, and believlngthe act subject to the objeationsabove discussed,the audgmentremandingthis appellant~111 be reversed and.the appellant ordered dlsoharged.

. ..' :.*: ;_

. ‘-..:i:. >F~llo&g. the. dea~~~on ~i$f ‘&p&e’ &f&in the 44th'Legislat~e-at'I~s Regular Sess$onof 1935 enacged Chapter 325';

Acts:'ef

1935; which appears as.Vernon'sAnnotated 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 personwho 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 Commissionof 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-inforce 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 personswho 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 contracter agreement for such transpertatlon wh,lch max :.have been-partially

er.whellynegotiatedby the applicant. Artlcle~91U .-.further required the,

owner of the motsr vehi'tile to file adequate bends ,orinsuran~e~pol.icles with the Railroad Commlsslon,:

and durther requlred.bhetransportation agent te request of the owners of.the motor ,vehlcle that such~owners exhlbit~tothe'agenta certlfldatefrom the Railroad Coihlssion certifyingthat auoh owner had~on file In the Railroad Commlsslon's:offioe.adequate~-~bonds.and insurancepolicies. ,> .'

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

In holding Article gllc unconstitutional, the court used the following language:

"BearingIn mind what we'have above set out from the statementof facts showing the businessof appellantto 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 contractwith 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,~~impossibleof..performante, wlthout;.fair. application,

and,-prohibit,ive.,:~ and surrounds

hisattempt to engage.inthis buslness'with-conditlona.preoedent'andconcomitant such as..reveal-themselvesto a casual readerof:those partesor.of the statutewhich. '. 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~stateand of:the'.Uni.ted States, and~the :i Invasion-of

the libertiesof a citizen to engage In and' pursue a lawful business thanappears In ,thls record. We calI.speciaI attention.to

the authoritiescited-inEx~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~someof Its. ~~~~aot%?luslons:.~~.

We see no ,parity

between'theHouse of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page 6 (O-563)

law applicableto 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 carriedhltchhikers who have turned out to.~be robbers, this Surnishesany 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 eventuallyenter open-eyed into an agreementte.

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 :oSthe eourt'of:Appeals.and held Article 911c to be unconst~tutSoaal,:notwit~Canding the ,faotthat the Sln~:if; fact made:by-the trial~courtwere~

extremelyfaverable to:the':propenents of~the.legislation.:.-- :~ Our inqu&&ow turns to an.anal&s.oS the provisions of:

Senate.Bill75 and.a 8omp;irlson of the provisions of Senate Bill 75 with.the provisionsiif Arti&le 827d of"the Penal CodeYand'oS9110j-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'quotedfrom 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 Ce those.-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 principleannounced

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"placerestmlctions upon the.exerclseof '.'~ 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 requirementsof Senate RI11 75, partloularly these contained In Section 3Heuse of Representatives, April 11, 1939, Page i' (C-563)

and 6 thereof, to be stltutienal. unreasenable and, therefore,unconSe&ion 3 prohibitsthe selling or offering for sale by any perscn etc.; for a compensation of transpertation for passengersef any character. It further prohibits the making of any centract,agreementor arrangementto 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;.asone whe.performis .any.oSthe 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.bythe.sellingqr-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&~wedI!..~

I .

. :' .:
Seotion~6provides-that np lioense~sha$l

issue by ~the.Commlssion~:nor shall a~ny,lioense~remaln In pgroe, unless the broker shall have furnisheda bsnd,er other security ap- -proved by.the .Commlssien,..ln such formand amount as .the..~., Cemmission~may

prescribeoendltlened .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 conditionedto recWre the supplyingof authorizedtransportation and authenic Information in accordance with contracts,

azreementsor arrangements thereforwith authorizedcarriers,authenticated copies of which contractsshall be filed.wlththe Railroad Commlsslon.”

The effect of Section 3, in our opinion, is to prohibitthe holder of a properly issued broke,r's license 'from performing

any act which directlyor Indirectlyarranges for, procuresor providestransportation for another ‘unless such arrangement

etc. for transportation Is made with a-person; firm or aerporatlonregularly and lawfullyengaged In the transportation of padsengersferhlre, as ,etidenaed I b;g.a.'c~tlfleate':ef:aonvenienae::and necessity Issuedfbythe. Railroad Commisslenef !Pexas..~:SeatIon-6 exempts.prIvate

IndIvlduals'-from

the.prohlbitlons:sf- the Aatonly-when the Bervlces'of'a.broker'de. not Interveneor 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 any prlvat+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, amblgultyand:v&ueness.' ~-

The aendltlonef the bend required by Section 6 of theYbIllmakes a llaensedbroker liable fer the fulfillment of any transpertatien centractor arrangementeven though his aontracter arrangement~Es ,independently

made by
a motor owner and a~traveler.and.'even though the%brskertakes
no part In the~maklngef 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'sAnnotatedCivil Statutewlll.reach the
same conclusion

with respect te Senate Bill 75, If an at- 'tackIs ,made:

thereonby perssns. whs are able.te.prove that the'conduct

of ~their

business .Isfree:.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 subjectte 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 misdemeanorfor any person to violate or fall to comply with Senate Bill 75 or any rule, reRulation.order or decree of the Commissionpromulgated under the.termsof the Act. Punishmentfor violation is fixed by fine of not less.than.$$OO.OO and not more than $200.00,and+he.*lolatlons occurring'on each day are declared to be.a sepaxiPte offewe....~e&.l~n 3 of the Act.. prevldea that.theComm%sslo~:"shall~.prescrlb$ .suchFeassriable:miles-iand

.regalatlsiis.as.~y:beifermd.neces$arg.". : 1Yowhere.In;iSeaate.B~~1,7~.fs previelenmade 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 rules and 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 certaintyby 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 CriminalAppeals. In the case last cited, the court said:

~~~"A~dompleteii

law, If penal in its effect, -must define the act or emisslen denouncedas .' criminalwith some degree of certainty. And if by the law one is, as In the present case, commandedts de some affirmativeact, 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 instrumentof government, such as the live steak sanitary commlsslen, the power to make rules, the nonobservance of which censtitutesa criminal offense, it is deemed necessary that the Legislaturedefine the power and place limitations upon the authsrlty te premulgaterules, 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 inquiryas 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 furnishedto Us by lawyers,notably Mr. T. S. Christopher, who have had previousexperience in lltigatlon lnv&lvlngthe CQnstitUtionality Qf the 1933 and 1935 Acts, .which are referred Co 3.n th5.s Qpinisn:,.~In

order that there may'be'noconfnsien with. raspeat tQ,.the

saope Qr this opinion, we will further state we believe it to be settledbeyond the possibility

.. Qr doubt that.the operationOr a. travel: bureau 1s.a bnalnesswhich can prqperly. be.regnlated.by~theLeglslature;':;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;:SenateBill'.75,-will.. be held ts be':Unreasenable and nncQnstltutisnal by.the courtswhlah stiruak dtiwn the previena leglslatl0nreferrefl.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