Dear slrz

This le ln rep

rsquesttngour opllllon rEdidit of 11.

B. eo5 tter 0r ;Tun \d 6th, itutionFi11t7

and by the Legislature

CrlainalFro00 aat under cons o? the aode 5 of the Code o? e title to the **to** the article is in the iallat its first oalled

, supra, by assMS, Qeneraland SpeoialL ws. ared unconstitutional by this Ion 1~0.

0-25, renderea~on

January 11, was held to be defeatire**because the**  the purpose of all a8 bei% deoeptire.
The capttoh a? B. 3. 205 does not have such tioee. It speclfisathe revision and artiole to be amendeb, without lnafoatingthe particularsof the changes to be made **by** the amendment. This has been aeeeptedby ouroourtswith the'rawoni~ that the namlag of tb artiolm to be amended dlreotsattentionto all of the provl8iona therein,as the subjectof the arendingsot, and that auoh provisionsaan be be amended. See ICat2 v. State, 7 the set to 130, and authoritiesthered sited. I. In t&e ease before us the provlsionaof Artlale 1055, C. C. P., 1925,mere in effeot, dlreotedattentionto in the title of **the** act as the subjeotof the amendingaot. **We** quote from the Katz ease:

*The oourts of this state have held that

93 Ter. $239;

55 S. I?.

109; State v. IbeCracken; 48 Tex. ss4.- (uudersoorin& ours).
An examinationof the prorlsionsof Artiole 1055, C. C. P. supra, and ca?parlaon with Seotlon 1 of ~heBGe~, reveals substantial and material change in

. Prior to amendmentthe article read:

wArticle 1055. iialf oosts paid offioers,
"The oounty shall be pliable to each officer and witnessbarin& east8 in a a&sdemeanoronce for only one-half thereofwhere the defendanthas satisfiedthe fine and oosts adjudgeda@nst him in full by labor in the workhouse,on the oounty farm,on the publio roads **or** upon any publicworks of the oounty; and to pay euoh haI of such legal coetae may hsve.been so taxed,not lnoludingO(E missions, the county judge @hall issue his wnrrant~uponthe County Treasurer in favor of the proper party, and the eeme shallbe paid out of the road and bridge fund or other funds not otherwiseappropriated.*, ,.c

.B. B. XiS, Tollaalngpamage and aeoutive approval of aafd axWale now readat
mArtlcle 1035; The eount7 ahall not bs liable to the offloer and witnew havbg OoStu in a misdemeanor6~16 where**.de** fenasntpays hle fine aIIP ooets. The oounty #hall be lfsble for o-half of the fees of the officer8of the oourt,v&en tha defendantfalls to pay his fine anU.lqa hire fiam out la tb4 ootmty jail or &aehargss the ame by rearm of working suah fine out on the county road5 or on any ocunty projeat. Ana to pay ruah half of oosts, the oountg 010x-k

shall issue his mrrant on the County Treasurer in favor of euoh offioer to be paid out oT the Rodd and Bridge ?und or other ?unds not otheniae 

### l ppmp3lated.* While **substantialacbmges** are **noted in**  the **tami~-** ology 

### ana provl5ionsof H. B, 1#)5, it ia our opinion the 

### l ubject~treat6.d

ie the so, i.e., half aoets paid offiatp under oertain ooondltioaa. Therefoxw,

we hold the option or title 16: sufficimt to meet the oonatltutloml raqldremnnts. The emergenapclauee of Ii. B. eO5 18 emoneous ln etatlng that 6. & 727 of the Forty-fifth Sagislature, which we declared unconstitutional, aontained *the mast prov%sionsof this &t" and "this Eill.....is acre17 a correctionof House Bill No. VE7,*

He do not reason the error6 la **the emergemy**  olause to vitktt the bill. treqnote froic the c&se oi ~i85OUri-fhnSW-??eXa8 3% th v. Thasason **(CiV,** 4p*, ait ~~eQ):280 Se Wm 325:

Qaergena~'olauses dn bills, however, are not aflded

for **the** purpone of clarifyingor deolarlng the intentionof the Leglalature, aorta explain the express Iaaguageof the aat; but oril7

for the purpose of setting,. .‘

iorth the rm~ao~11 forth. 

### l

~~ps~ton at **the** oonatltutional rule requiringthe bill to be read on three eeparatedav, qnd for puttlag into 5mmediata0trbCt auoh aat whatever be ;ts mope qnd tsnns.w
See also 89 Tax. hr. 827; LloyUs Casualt Co.~r. Lwi(Civ. App. writ Qismlss~d)~62 6. PO.(24 v 497.
An examlnatlonof the body of B. B. 205, while revealinga 8Ub8taIhial dep,artumfrom the pror$sions of Artb 1055, **C. C.**  **P., 1925**  **and H.**  8. 787, 45th I&g. Reg. seaa., doe8 not d1801OSSany violence to our fun4wm1tsl km, nor any excess of legialatire prerogative.

we thereforerespeatlully advice pou that it l8 our opinion that H. 3. 805, a8 enacted, It3 valid ti eonetltutional.
YOtLPE V8r5' tnilr

APPROVEDJUN17, 1939