The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-11-04
|AAI FEE BILL Legislation
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Give,
The FEE BILL A KNOCK OUT
BLOW.
|M ATTACHED Witness FEATURE
k,. Attorney General
issues an Opinion Upon rbi.
very Important auest,o, nv,
Opinion In Full.

Inc attorney general boS n,u.,
G is,o me stufing out of tha f Pui'e si,, some
II ho passed at the speciol saa. ieg-
s;ra mas ,rpeen a growing connndrr SESSION.
nnon texas craftsmanship Ionnah 1'er
ra pHm me statute books. The effnrt II
hold eMpehses by the ATTEMPT IN WITH ~
tiona, ir ria defendants their cons %itm-
heboIf iisht TO have witnesses m tho9.
has has,, noa attached and brought into c .,ert
cbong aanned out an utter failure 'T The
from attaa, .he name of the summons
same ti mo to subpoena at The
purpose of t no. altering the object and
aufnoh and there has been muot c9n-
Iulr! OF the law department anant an. ln,
saint sa,le. oilce Assistant King has had me me
al.elnpt TO deprive defendants 'i ir me me
county courts of their rights IN me
premises under investigation ~ and tne
ene Following opinion deals the f emu Iii ~
ers a knock out blow: ' '''e Lee Dill
Il Ro Al Carpenter, Esq, County Attorney.
Dear Sir-The question pronoundoa
t ~ you 10 TINS department in your LEI.
lows. In ''o or, ~ is, in effect, as fol-
the county courts, what kind of nsooo ~
can De issued to compel the attandonoo
OF witnesses residing in n corntv IT,
ting? '-'e COURT Is SIT
Inc following facts have suppestod
the above question, viz: ee'''eu
rirst-by an act of the special session
OF the Twenty-ffth legislature. chanter
10; page o. all the statutory laws pro-
sluing Tor the issuance of attachments
ler witnesses In criminal cases in any
VI lne trlai courts of the state were
repealed. That is to say, said act OK
pressly repeats articles 525 to 534 in
ciuslVe OF title Z, chapter of the Code
Oh criminal Procedure, and the articles
SO repealed contain all the law found in
said Code authorizing the issuance by
any trial court of attachments for wit
nesses in criminal cases.
secondly said act chapter o. page
oS, provisions are made to issue sub
poenas instead of attachments for wit
nesses In criminal cases residing out of
the county where the prosecution is
pending.
The first question arising for determi-
nation in this connection is this: Is
the application of the new subpoena law
limited to district courts, grand juries
and magistrates setting as examining
courts, or does said law apply to all the
trial courts, including county courts ?
The language of the act is broad enough
if literally construed, to include within
its application all the trial courts of
the state; but, looking to this title of
said act we find that it's application is
confined by the terms of said title to
district courts, grand juries and magis-
frates sitting as an examining court.
Uhe title to said act reads as follows:
San act to enforce the attendance of
witnesses in criminal cases upon dis
Nrict courts, grand juries and magis-
trates sitting as examining courts in
counties other than those of their resi-
dence under subpoena, and to provide
for the punishment for disobedience OF
such subpOenas and to repeal articles
525. 526, 527, 52S, 500, $50, 531, 532, 533
and 534, It'll chapter 4, of the Code
of Grimm lure of the state of
Texas. by the Twenty-fourth
legislature, 1885, and all other laws ana
parts of laws in conflict with this act
Can or must the title of an act be
looked to in constituting an act? Is the
title a part of the act 1t has generally
been considered as no part of the act.
lam. and Eng. Ency. of Law, volume -,
page 327, and authorities cited IN notes.
and can only be resorted to when the
meaning of an act is doubtful; u,
page 32S and authorities clted) but
yides that the subject of an act shali
be expressed in the title, etc, the title
becomes part of the act and may con-
fine the effect and operation of the act
to the objects expressed. io4 "a. o 81,
IS; 50 N. j. L., 400; 10 Rush ky. J; 6el
10 Tex e;n CT sd1 A 4RggS ao2' o00leys o0nS''
How is it in this state? by section
* article 3 of the constitution OF the
state it is provided: u,,.;o,
"No bill Except general appropriation
bills which may embrace the various
subjects and accounts for ana on az
connt of which moneys are appropri-
sted. shall contain more than one SUD
;ect which shall be expressed in it's title;
Rut If any subject shall be embraced
in an act which shall not be expressed
in the title, such act shall be VOID only
as to so much thereof as snail not pe
so expressed" i.
So in this state the title OF an act ls
a part of the act, and the operati1n anu anu
effect of the act must be tested by tne
title. G6 Ct. App, 502) Applying this
rule of construction to the act In ques-
tion and we discover by its title It Is
restricted in it's operation and erect 10
district courts, grand juries ana maSls,
rates sitting as examining courts ana
that though the language OF tne
oct itself would permit Oh lno
aStandcd operation and effect, yet 1t must
ho restricted in it's operation and erect
~ tho objects and purposes named IN the
t ~ II is true that under proper utle
~ nrov;sions could have been made APP
i iJi 70 all courts without Violating
r nv ,,rovisions of the constitution. pro-
,ii that no bill shall contain IL more
than ono subject. | can not Deter M
nress nv meaning than by quotlng NIL
TEooIev npon the subject. he says .;.Io
"As the legislature may make tn I,lo as,e
j.. as as oct ms restrictive as they piease,
y. ;t I; an ohvious that they may someti!nes
40 frame it as to preclude. m n'h;cb might
heing included in the act WIN omhraeed
9TH entire proprety have been e ttars in.
", ono enactment with the niu. ,st now
~ in the title, but when mus nus heen
be excluded because the ttle nus The
NC unnecessarily restrictive % the
n.aut .sn not enlarge the scope OIL inc
court . can a nu vested with no dispensing
mower; the constitution mas .h b,au legislative
he the conclusive index to tne nnseration;
; tne az to what shall have opein ,n;ght
= i no answer to say that the .,si1 # in
ho 30 heen made more comprehensl;t 60"
fnc. the legislature has not maue leo q "
fact .ne renst Lin, 6 ed. p. lo9.
C9oley Us legislature having by the tet This
of it's title restricted the opufd1; uries and
act to district courts, grand n;nr t'e courts,
may;stra sitting as eXamin nnnSr,tion to
if can not be extended IN lts o giit than