Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-351 Page: 3 of 5
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Governor W. Lee O'Daniel, March 1, 1959, Page 5
purpose of the bill, any attempt to legislate
otherwise in sich bill variant from the pur-
pose prescribed, is in excess of the legisla-
tive power, and that a law subject to this
complaint is unconstitutional."
The purpose of this constitutional provision Is expressed
in 39 Teo. ur. 7?, as follows:
"It is intended to secure notice to the
legislators and the people, through such pub-
lication of legislative proceedings as is
usually mrde, of the subject, nature or con-
tents of each particular bill, thus avoiding
deception, misapprehension and surprise in
legislation and giving those wto are inter-
ested in a subject under consideration an op-
portunity to be heard thereon, if they so de-
The Bill we have under consideration applies to all school
districts of this size, but the caption limits the bill to county
line districts. The caption would not, at the time the bill was
pending in the Le * lature, have given notice "to the legislators
and the people * * o f the * * * ootenatsof th e the ill, or given
those who were interested an opportunity to be heard thereon*, be-
cause those t@ lived in school districts that were not on county
lines could not tell by reading the caption that the Bill applied
to their districts.
In the oases of Giddings vs. San Antonio, 4? Tax. 548;
Adams vs. San Angelo Water Works Co., 86 Tax. 485, 25 S.W. 605; and
Archey vs. State, 123 Tex. Grim. App. 458, 59 S.W. (2d) 406, as well
as in some other cases, the caption of the act involved was not su-
ficient to cover the entire body of the bill, and the court held
that the bill was void only as to that part not embraced in the
caption; but in those oases the part not embraced in the caption
was in separate sections and paragraphs, and, as said in the Arohey
case, it was "easily separable from the other matters and things
named in the title", and when it was stricken out the bill was
still complete and intelligible.
In the bill we have under consideration, the part not
covered by the caption is not "easily separable from the other mat-
ters and things named in the title". In faot, it iould be imposs-
ible to strike out that part of the bill applying to districts not
on county lines and leave a bill that only applied to county line
districts. Therefore, the entire anot will have to be held void
for the reasons stated in 25 R.C.L. 840, as follows:
Here’s what’s next.
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-351, text, 1939; (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth257536/m1/3/: accessed November 18, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.