Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
GERALD C. MANN ATTORNEY GENERAL
HOROPASE T. O. Walton President, Texas A. & M. College College Station, Texas
Dear Sir:
Opinion No. 0-105 He: Must students of A. & M. working under the Texa Cooperative wildlife he search Unit purchase cheapfeurts 11 genses?
We are in receipt of your letter of June 20, 1939, in which you request an opinion on the following questions:
"1. Does Section 3 of Article 6687a of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas exempt drivers of motor vehicles owned by the Federal Government when such drivers are students of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, working under the direction of the leader of the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (Texas A. & M. College, Texas Gene, Fish and Gyster Commission, American Wildlife Institute, and Biological Survey), and who are paid from funds provided by the Gene Commission or the American Wildlife Institute (private funds)?
"2. If it is held that Section 3 of the above Act does not exempt such persons, would the Attorney General consider them constitutionally exempt under the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Johnson v. Maryland?"
*2
Honorable T. O. Walton, Page 2
Section 1 (g) of Article 6687a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, defines a "ohaufieur" as follows: "Any person who operates a motor vehicle for any purpose, whole or part time, an an employee, servant, agent, or independent contractor, whether paid a salary or commission; and every person who operates a motor vehicle while such vehicle is in use for hire or lease."
Section 2 of Article 6687a, supra, requires that "all ohauffeurs" be lloensed in the following language: "On and after April 1, 1936, no person except those expresely examp under this Act, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person on application has been lleensed as an operator or ohauffeur by the department under the provisions of this Act."
Section 3 of the Act enumerates "exemptions". Subdivision (b) of Section 3 provides as follows: "Every person in the service of the United States and when furnished with a driver's permit and when operating an official motor vehicle in such service shall be exempt from 11eense under this Act."
Certain students of A. &; M. College, working under the direction of the leader of the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, drive motor vehicles "owned by the Federal Government". They are paid for their services from funds provided by the Texas Game, Fish and Oyster Commission (State funds) or the American Wildife Institute (private funds).
The question is, whether or not these students must obtain ohauffeurs' licenses under Article 6687a.
They clearly fall within the statutory definition of "ohauffeur" in Section 1 (g) of the Act. They operate motor vehicles for certain definite purposes, part time, we assume, since they are students. They are either
*3 Honorable T. O. Walton, Page 3
employees or servants since they are subject to the control of the leader of the Wildlife Research Unit and receive compensation in the form of salaries or wages.
Unless expressly exempt under the provisions of the law, these students are statutory "chauffeurs" and must comply with the law by obtaining chauffeurs' licenses.
Subsection (b) of Section 3, above quoted, is the only "exemption" remotely applicable to the case at hand. Yet it falls far short of meeting the situation of these A. & M. students. In the first place, they are not "in the service of the United States." Second, they do not have "a driver's permit" from the United States. Finally, they are not "operating an official motor vehicle in such service"; i.e., service of the United States Government, even though they are driving "motor vehicles owned by the Federal Government". In some instances, these students are paid from private funds.
We cannot stretch the exemption of Section 3 (b) to reach them in any one of the three conditions set forth in the wording of the subsection, and all the triple requisites must be met.
At this point we call attention to opinion No. 0-490, rendered April 13, 1939, holding that persons employed by A. & M. College, whose duties include operating college-owned trucks should obtain chauffeurs' licenses under Article 6687a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes.
We are familiar with the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Johnson vs. Maryland (1920) 41 Sup. Ct. 16.
The case is easily distinguishable from the present situation. Plaintiff in error in the Johnson case was an employee of the Post Office Department of the United States driving a government motor truck across state lines. It was held that the state of Maryland had no power to require such an employee to obtain a Maryland driver's license by submitting to an examination concerning his competence and paying $5.00 license fee. The reasoning behind the opinion was that the instruments of the superior command of the United States Government must be immune from state control in the performance of their duties of national scope.
The status of a federal mail carrier employed by the United States Post Office Department in operating a
*4 Honorable T. O. Walton, Page 4 government motor truck in said service is in no way analogous to that of an A. &; M. College student drawing wages from state or private funds for operating a governmentowned ear in a state cooperative project. The exemption of Section 3 (b) would reach the employee of the United States Post Office Department and was clearly designed to serve that purpose. But neither the statutory exemption nor the reasoning of the opinion would apply to the facts under consideration.
In Opinion No. 0-487, dated May 22, 1939, we went further than we do in this instance in denying an exemption under subegeotion (b) of Section 3, in view of the Johnson vs. Maryland doctrine. Our decision was that a W.P.A. worker, on a county road project driving a county-owned truck but drawing his pay from the United States Government is not exempt from obtaining a chauffeur's license under Section 3 (b) of Article 6687a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. The reason is that he is not "operating an official motor vehicle" within the exemption provision. The fact alone that he is drawing pay from the Federal Government does not bring a W.P.A. worker within the doctrine of Johnson vs. Maryland. Said worker is employed on a county road project, driving a countyowned truck. He is not, therefore, an instrument of the United States Government whose compulsory compliance with state license laws would constitute an infringement upon the domain of the Federal Government. The well recognized immunity of federal instrumentalities does not extend to this case, due to the fact that the status of the W.P.A. worker on a county project, driving a county-owned truck, is not that of a federal employee performing service of federal scope.
It is our opinion that the students of A. &; M. College, driving motor vehicles owned by the Federal Government for the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and drawing pay from state or private funds, are "chauffeurs" within the coverage of Article 6687a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, and must obtain chauffeurs' licenses, being neither exempt under the Act nor under general principle of constitutional law.
We have previously pointed out that if the scope of the statutory definition of "chauffeur" is too broad, it is a matter easily remedied by legislation. It is not for this department to pass upon the division of a particular legislative enactment.
*5
Honorable T. G. Walton, Page 8
Trusting that the above fully answers your in-
quiries, we are
Yourg very truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEIAS