Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1970 )


Menu:
  • Honorable Wilson E. Speir        Opinion No. M-682
    Director, Department of
    Public Safety
    5805 North Lamar Blvd.
    P. 0. Box 4087
    Austin, Texas                    Re:   May non-profit, charitable
    organizations operate a
    commercial driver-training
    school without being li-
    censed as required by Ar-
    ticle 4413 (29c) Vernon's
    Dear Colonel Speir:                    Civil Statutes?
    ,'
    Your request.for an opinion states that several nor!-
    profit, charitable organka~tions operate driver-training pro-
    grams. The question presented.is whether such programs must
    be licensed as "commercial driver-training schools" under
    the provisions of Article 4413 (29c), Vernon's Civil Statutes.
    Article 4413(29c), S2, provides:
    "Sec. 2. No person, firm association, partner-
    ship. or corporation shall operate a commercial
    driver-training school after January 1. 1968,
    unless a license,as a commercial driver-training
    school has been secured from the Texas Deuartment
    of Public Safety, provided that training or classes
    conducted.by colleges, universities, high schools,
    and junior high schools for regularly enrolled
    students as a part of the normal program for such
    institutions shall be exempt." fimphasis Supplied:/
    Your letter states that the non-profit, charitable
    organizations have no connection with colleges, universities,
    high schools or junior high schools which alone are exempted
    -3258-
    Honorable Wilson E. Speir, Page 2 (M- 682    )
    from the Act. Thus, we conclude that the programs in question
    are not exempt. While the non-profit, charitable organiza-
    tions are no doubt performing a valuable service which should
    be encouraged, exceptions to this type of statute are strictly
    construed. 53 Tex. Jur. 2d 308, Statutes, S201. Moreover.
    in construing a statute, it is not permissible to ergraft
    an exception by implication merely because there seems to
    be a good reason for doing so. Wallace vs. Stevens, Tex.,
    1889, 
    12 SW 283
    ; Bradley.vs. Gilliam, Tex.Civ.App., 1924,
    
    260 SW 289
    .
    A remaining question is whether   the non-profit,
    charitable organizations are operating   a "commercial driver-
    training school" within the meaning of   the statute. Article
    4413(29c), 51(a), defines a commercial   driver-training
    school as follows:
    (a) "Commercial driver-training school" or
    "school" means any enterprise conducted by an
    individual, association, partnership, or cor-
    poration, for the education and training of
    persons, either practically or theoretically,
    or both, to'operate or drive motor vehicles and
    charging a consideration or tuition for such-
    services.I' LEmphasis SuppliedA /
    Since your letter expressly states that a "nominal charge"
    is made for the programs operated by the charitable organi-
    zations, we must conclude that the organizations do charge
    a "consideration" or "tuition" for such services. According-
    lY, the driver-training programs in question fit within the
    statutory definition of a commercial driver-training school.
    The mere fact that an organization is charitable
    or non-profit does not ipso facto remove it from the field of
    commerce. "Commerce" is uniformly defined as "business
    intercourse, the exchange,,buying or selling of commodities
    or services."l/ Commerce is not restricted to activities
    having financxal profit as their aim.
    Closely analogous questions have arisen   in   cases
    l/ cf. ?a Words and Phrases 454. “Commercef8;     cf.
    zlso Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed.
    -3259-
    Honorable Wilson E. Speir, Page 3 (M- 682      )
    under the "commerce" clause of the United States Constitution.
    In State of Maryland    vs. Wirtz,    
    269 F.Supp. 826
    , D.Md., 1967,
    the court  declared that "commerce" is not confined to business
    activity in a conventional     sense,   but includes non-business
    ;;dn;;;;irofat,activities, whether private or governmental
    irrespectxve of whether they compete with or
    may be substituted for by private enterprise./
    We therefore conclude that the driver-training
    programs described in your request fit within the statutory
    definition of a “commercial    driver-training school". Since
    the operators of such programs charge a consideration for
    their services and are not connected with a college, univer-
    sity, high school, or junior high school, we must conclude
    that such organizations    are subject to the licensing pro-
    visions  of Article 4413(29c).
    SUMMARY
    Under the facts submitted, driver-training pro-
    grams conducted by non-profit, charitable organ-
    izations are subject to the licersing provisions
    for "commercial driver-training schools" in ac-
    cordance with Article 4413(29c), V.C.S.
    General   of   Texas
    21      The
    State   of Texas intervened along with 24
    other  states    as parties plaintiff arguing inter
    alia that     non-profit activities should not be
    deemed   “commerce”.
    -3260-
    Honorable Wilson E. Speir, Page 4 (~-682   )
    Prepared by Earl S. Hines.
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    Robert Giddings
    Robert C. Flowers
    Steve Hollahan
    Ivan Williams
    MFADE F. GRIFFIN'
    Staff Legal Assistant
    ALFRED WALKER
    Executive Assistant
    NOLA WHITE
    First Assistant
    -3261-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-682

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1970

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017