In detemlnlng the purpoeo of the bill, ye may oonlrult the legislative journalr. Red RLler Rati- Feraum 109 Tex. 287, 206 S. W. 923, Hurt Y Oak Downm, 66 8. W.'(28) 294 (appeal dismissed, 97 9. W.'(2d) 673).

When this blll was before the House of Repre6entatIve6, the following statemsnt wa6 made by Repreeentatlve Dlokson of Bcxar County: (House Journal, pagea X576-1377)

"Thle Is an explanation of my vote on H. B. No. 334, which la a looal law affecting the Health Department of the City of San Antanlo, TexaE. ThIe bill 1s maas to q&yto San Antonis by uee of the populatlon braoket devloe, and it undertakes to regulate the affalrr of no other olty. Governor O'Danlel hae! oondemned this type of leglelatlon, and Attorney tineral Mann has ruled farm of bill rlo&rter 8eotlon 66 of repeatedly that this Artlale SI or the Texas ConGitution. In y opinfrpg the bill 18 of doubtful eonrtitntlonality md I ham -#ted to my eolleaguea fros Bexar Gounty that all auel’blllr, aireating only 6an Antonio OP Bexar County, be rererreu to the Attorney General for an oplnlon a6 to their valialty before theh are enacts& Into law. My aolleaguer have not agreed with my ouggeetlan and being outvoted four to one, I think that it ^[16] unralr to bring 8 loaal fight to the floor of the Bouse and ask the other Hembers to take rides on an lrsue in which they have little or no interest. Shoe I as or the oplnlon that b%l.lr of thir nature are an abuee or the law-making pouer and aan only eorve to clutter up the aourte and oauee further lorr of raspeat ror our law8 I can oonrlstently take no part 1.n their ma f, therefore, answer a8 'pre6ent and not p866w Yotlllg." We are unable to think of any r6rsoMb~e relation between the objeot of the bill ant? the pepulatlon brackets, exaept to make the bill applleable only to the City oi San Antonio. The minimum popul.ation requirement dght be emlalned on the barls that smaller sitler bo not need to have a Board of but oui operate under the general mtatutee providing Health, for the appelntment of Health Offloers, See Artialer 4424-4426, *3 Honorable FL Welnert, Ohalrmam,

Vernon's Annotated alrll Statutre. Hewver, this explanation would make the rxalucllon of altier aontalnlng more than 290,040 inhabitante purely arbitrary. We are therefore foraed to oon- elude that the purpose of the bill wae to olngle out the City of 8an Antonio for spoolal treatment, and that the bill Is a apeolal law and therefore unoonetltutlonal. Bexar Countr v Tynaq, 128 Tex. 223, 97 6. W. (28) 467; North Texas Traction Co. v. Bryag 116 Tex. 4%. 294 3. W. 527; Randolnh v. ta e, 117 Tex.'Cr. 80, 36 S. W. (2&l 484; Smith v. State,'l2: Tex. Cr. 431, 49 9. W. (Zd) 739.

Very truly yours ATTORNEY OEi?ERAL OF TEXAS OZlWJULOFTEXA6 APPFl0VD OPIHIOH aomuTTBE BY BWH awLIRwAII