Case Information

*1 Aus-rm. TEXAS Febrky 27, 1947 Honorable Tom Martin, Chairman

Game and Fish Corrmittes

Rouse of Representatives

Fiftieth Legislature Opinion V-55

Austin, Texas

Re: Constitutionality of House Bill No. 223, 50th Legislature.

Dear. Sir: I

In your letter of February 5, 1947, you have ro- quested an op$.nien Enn this office rslatioe ts the aon- of Ifowe bill No* 223, 50th L~(isl~tu,re, stitutiomality TherewIth, a copy th$s bill ua8 submitted~ emI l&as- much a8 you have undeubtedJ.y retainod.a copy, thlr o- pinion nerd n,ot bo lmrdono+d w$th ~W%t~tae therefrom. . .

In a consideration of constitutionality of a bill which’hes lrot b@oa challenged oq some ~peolflc ground, 8,one four wall-settled constitutional princi- ples are appUoabJ,e and it should here be detanali!od

ether the bill (1) is saff$ciently certain and d&ii- n te in it6 terms, (2) pertains to on1 one sub act whic]l $,a properly exp~amsed In the tit e (3) t e bill's l d provisions are within the scope of 1egisiatiM aUthQrity l gd do ot violate any oxpress or im lied prohi tien of ths 8 ~8WlxiqtAoa of the‘Stats ef !i exas, and It 1 if the bill is within such 16 islative authority, whether its terms constitute an un ue delegation thereof, Those will be specif$,caUy considered In the order named.

That laws muat certain and definite to be ial- id is fundamental and this rule is said to require that anact must be sufficiently plain in Its language to be understood b .t;oa; ‘affected by it, Baltimore & Ohio Q-4 co. vs. !I 221 U. S. 612; State VS., Inter- national and Q. i. $. CO., 179 S.VJ. 867; Bradford V.

State, 180 S.W. 702, and authorities therein cited. It is net deemed necesaary'to elaborate on the application *2 Hon. Tom Martin - Page 2 v-55

of this rule to the bill presented. Suffice it to say that the terms of the bill should present no difficulty to the understanding of the Commission or of rt3ons af- fected thereby, its provisions appearing suff clently E" clear to e’nable i&Commission to properly administer the act and to apprise persons interested in its sub- ject matter of their rights and duties and the necessary 3, procedures regarding their taking of wild-life In Texas as it is defined in Section 15 of the bill. It/is noted * that a line was apparently omitted in Section 2 between ', I the second and third lines. - '.

Regarding the object or subject of the bill, It is clear that, in accordance with the provisions of Article III, :Sec. 35 of the Constitution of Texas, the provi- sions are limited to one general subject, namely; the preeorvation of wild-life resources in the State. .

Statod conversely, the bill includes no proviaion that mane to ultimata object of the act, even If not epecifi- would fall by reason of its not being relevant or gor- tally mentioned in the title, * c ^[1]

The title, howevor, is virtually a resume of tho proviaione of the bill& It ls,stPtod that the coaatituc tional provisions (Article III, Section 35, supra) ro- quiring that the subject of the bill be 8 eolfiod in its title, has a twofold purpose. First, it E s designed to give notice to the Legislators and the publioof the nature of the contents of the bill, and to avoid docep- tioa orsurprise' in legislation by preventing the. in- clusion of unrelated matter. Second, it ,ia intended to avoid the brin ing together into one bill sub ects diverse in the f r nature with a view to combin ng in' l

their favor the advocates of all. 39 Tex, Jur., Sect. 36, Pea 75-78, and casea cited4 Horack* Sutherland T;~~TA ;ry Construction Sec. 1701, pp. 2 3,2Q6 Section 287-291. 50 iirn~ Jur SC@. 160 p. 135 ma ., case; E' c ted. Onl$ the generai'or ultima& objept of an

act is re uired to be stated in its title. It is not required t 5I at a titled be an Index or set forth in de- ,tail the contents and it is sufficient if the subject is fairly stated in a manner that would direct a person of "ordinary, reasonably inquiring mind to tho body of the act.e See authorities this'paragraph and Singletoa q, State, 111 S.W. 737; Watts Y. State, 135 S.W. 565; - Polk v.,State 1.48 S.W. 311; Focke ve State, 144 S.W.

267, 39 Tex. &r,, Sec. 45, pp* 96, 98. Certainly, the title of this House Bill No, 223 satisfies the.require- HOG Tom Martin - Page 3

ing the gener&l object qr eu

“an ac to regulate the reaervatlon of wild-life 5.~ could well be ad T1 ed to the first of the present TSXEi6” 1 title end that thie would obviate the necessity of flad- the general eub ect of the bill through the I&WCC i!! i re atiea of the var OUB phrases. Strictly, the oneti- tution requires ‘lone eubjeot, which shall be expresaad in its title.”

the third factor above mentioned, the pow er ofFl$OrdiY! Leg slature to regulate the taking of W.d* life in Texas le unqueM,onable. Not snly ie emoh reg- ulation a proper exercise of the pslice power of the State to be seed In the publie interest, but there k&00 appears in the’ Gonetltutlon a clear intent that the Le islature ah+11 have a very broad power relating to th a eubject where in Article ! III, Section 56 (last

ragraph) the authority for the enactment of .epet+al r awa In lieu of Renbral laws on the subject of the preservation of the game and fieh of the Staten iU ?!or has there been found any exprese or’implled given.

rohibltion In the Conetitutlon which would prevent the Is eglelature ~from validly enacting the bill prreented,

Since the act le deemed to be eufficlently certain and definite, ficleat limited to one eubjeot and beari “f a +f-

title, and within the mope of leglelat ve QU- thority the only coneideration remalnl Is whether in giving Che’Qame Fish and 0 ster Conmlee Y! on the broad power8 epeclfled, the effec t the bill night be cen- &rued to be an undue dele (Ltion of le ielative autheritjt. tes & * There la no invariable by whlrh t%e delegation.~of

authority by the Leglslatu?b and particular1 the bwer to make ruleo and rbgulatione (see Heotlona 1: and !i of the bill) effectuating a statute may determined* There $0 an ill-defined line between powers which ere those which &re not

In recent years the &drT, ’ i! with an inorease $!a oomplbx eohnital matter6 regerdln which legilslation Baa’ been neceeaary* It appears we l-settled in Texas that the Legislature may rant tom Boards end Commiseione ’ power to make rules f or effectuating general etatuteo, power to find facts on ascertainment of whloh a complete law ehall become applicable, and power which *4 Hon. Tom Martin - Page 4

the Legislature cannot itself practically and effl- ciently exercise. Trinrmier v; Carlton, 296 S.W. 1070; Rhodes v. Tattm 206 9.w~ 115, O'Brien v. Ammermen 233 S.W. 1019, fiur see V* American Rio Grand Land & 298 S W 649. Willhms ve Stat ~;igyfon& orael&s*v ~drrcll 186 S'W (2~'9~~~ Tie&itt v, &t of Dallai 242 SSt. 1073. *Citing numerous author 1: ties the C&t of Criminal Appeals of Texas in Williams vb State, 176 SsW* (2) 177, etatbd the rule as to the delegating of legislative authority very clearly as followel

"The question of this delegation of . authority has been much before the cowtoe and especially is that true in recent year6 by the enlarged powers conferred upon ad- ministrative boards and tribunals. Thb generally accepted rule governing such mat- ters now appears to be that a legislative body may after declaring a policy and fix- ing a primary standard, confer upon bxbcu- tlve or administrative~officbrs the peweT to fill up the details, by prescribing rules and regula,tions to remote the purpose and spirit of the legls P ation and to carry it' into effect, In such cases the action of the Legislature in giving such rule8 and regulations the force of laws does not vio- ,late the constitutional inhibition against delegating the leglelative function. The rule finds support In Field (Marshall) V* Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S. Ct. 495, 505' ;:6& Rd. 294, wherein the Supreme Co& : (The legislature cannot de18 ate Its ower to make a law, but it can m at e a law e o delegate a ower to dgtormkno oo8o fact gf: ;;~ix~d;ft~h!n&‘ uy& wh&c~c~“~~~~ =a$+‘, To deny this would be to sto TherI'are many !h$sw$!' 'f government o which wise and usefu .legislatlon must do- pend which cannot lcnoWn to the 1eW-adting ower, and must. therefore be a subject of and detenslnatien outsi& ef the s of legislation.lw Applying the above to the delegation of authority contained in Rouse Bill presented, there appears lit- tle question but that the.delegation therein contained *5 non, Tom Martin - Page 5

Is valid. The rule-making power given to the ConmUsign is for the purpose of “f-illing in the detailof in the accomplishment of the conservation of wild-life in Texae or preventing its depletiona ,The fact-finding power

lven the Cormaission $8 am le, and therm is no consti~ f utional objection to the P aw becoming applicable on the basfe of the findin e of fact that are rovided for in Sections 2 and 3, 2 n consonance with t R e above quota- tion ample primary rtandards are fixed for the CoamU* t sion s carrying out the policy stated.

It should be understood that this opLnion relates only to the constitutionality of the proposed delegation of authority to the Game, Fish and Gyater Commission and not to the necessity or advisability of such delegation, On this point It Is wholly within the discretion the Legislature to determine whether the conservation and , preservation of Texas wild-life can beet be accompliehed

by the Leglslature~e enactment of dAreat and specific rules and regulations in the form of law at two year intervale or by givin the Commiselon the authority contbmpla~bd by House % ill 223,

All of the foregoing considered, It Is the opinion of this offlce that the roposed HOUS Bill 223 as sub- rmltted, is constitutiona E

‘sill 223 is valid and rovieione it beln ‘tiuf- efinite it being !i imited to one subject which is prop&y expressed in the title its eubject matter be1 scope of ie iel.ative

alone eonst tutiag no uudue f authority.

Very truly yours* ,AT!l'ORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAti ’ Byiikze

Assistant JL: acm: arc