THEA=• ENEP GENERAL
OF TEXAS
Honorable Dorsey B. Rardeman
Chairman, Finance Committee
State Senate
Austin, Texas
Opinion No. C-449
Re: Validity of a "rider" con-
tained in Article V of
House Bill 12, General Ap-
Dear Senator ,Hardeman: propriation Act.
you have .requested an opinion on, the validity o,f the
following language c~ontained in a "rider" in Article V of
House Bill 12 of the 59th Legislature, General Appropriation
Bill:
"Interpretation of Legislative intent a8
it relates to the funds appropriated In this
Act and the conditions, limitations and pro-
cedures relating thereto shall be the respon-
sibility of the Attdrney General. In the
event of controversies 'or 'conflicts of inter-
pretation, final determination of Legislative
intent shall be made through opinions or rul-
ings by the Attorney General and the Comptrol-
ler of Public Accounts is directed to follow
such opinions or rulingsin the payment of
claims frotn,the fmds appropriated in this
Act. "
In determining the validity of the above-quoted language
of a "rider" in the General Appropriat.ion Bi,ll, we are govern-
ed by the principles of lath announced inthe authoritie's cited
in Attorney General's Opinions C-43 and.C-447. These prin-
ciples are as followsr General legisla.tion cannot be included
withina general appropriation bill '2 Moore v. Sheppard, 144
Tex. 537, 192 S.W.2d 599 (1946); a,"rider" in a general appro-
priation bill cannot repeal, modify or amend an existin gener-
al law - Conley v:Daughters of the Republic, 106 Tex. %0, 156
S.W. 197 1 13 Li d Fi 1 2T 451, 49 S.W. 578
(1899); slaze ?f Bt~e~,Vj7,T~xeyiG~.(l~~;).
-2130-
Hon. Doreey B. Rardeman, Page 2 (C~449)
It is the duty of the Attorney General as the chief. legal
officer of the State to give legal advice in the form of opin-
ions to the Governor, heads of the various departments,
boards and commissions and State institutions, and committees
of the Legislature, and to represent the State and the various
State boards, departments and commissions in civil actions.
Article IV, Section 22 of the Constitution of Texas; Chapter 4,
Title 70, Revised Civil Statutes.of,Texas. 1925 (Articles 4394-
4413, V.6.S.); Terre11 v. Sparks,‘lO&Tex: 151;,135~S.W. 51g-
(1911); Brady v. Brooks, gg Tex. 366, 8g S .W. 1053 (1905).
The various State departments, boards and commissions,
when performing their official duties, act as agencies of the
State. Therefore, such agencies do not have such a justiclable
Interest as would authorize one State agency to maintain a suit
against another State agency , since such a suit would, in ef,-
f+;+;ifconstitute the State of Texas maintaining a suit against
See Dallas Independent School District v. Edgar, 255
F.2d 455 (5th Circuit 1996 Da11 Independent school Dlstric t
v. Edgar, 328 S.W.2d 401 (Tii.ci v .A&;p; 1959) #
In recognizing the responsiblllty of the Attorney General
to advise county officials regarding their duties, the Court
in Wichita County v., Robinson, 155 Tex. 1, 276 S.W.2d 509, held
that a county was not entitled to recover from a county official
compensation which had been paid such county official under an
invalid act where the compensation had beenpald him in reliance
upon the advice of the Attorney General.
In view of the foregoing, It 1s the established law in
this State that it la the responsibility of the Attorney General
to settle controversies between agenclee of the State. The
language of the “rider” involved in your regueot differe; there-
fore, from the “rider” Involved In Attorney General’s Opinion
c-447. The “rider” construed In Attorney General’8 Opinion C-447
modified the exletlng law by making the Comptroller of Public
Accounts the fact finding agency for all expenditures of State
funds. On the other hand, the 'rider" involved,in your request
merely make0 a declaration of the reeponrlblllty of the Attor-
ney Qeneral, which rerponelbllity hsa heretofore been eetablleh-
ed by the constitutional and rtatutory provielonr of the State,
and ,judlolally drternlned by the court8 of this State’. There-
fore, the “rider” Involved In this request doer not attempt to
amend, modify or repeal any exleting State law. Since the
“rider” conrtltuter merely a declaration of exletlng law, you
are advised that no change in the’ exletlng law will occur by ,%I;
ther the exclusion or inclueion of the provision8 of the “rider”
involved in your request. Therefore, It 1s within the sound
dlrcretlon o? the Leglelature to determine whether such a
-2131-
. .
Hon. Dorsey B. Rardeman, page 3 (C-449)
declaration should or should not be made.
SUMMARY
A "rider" declaring that in the event of
controversies or conflicts between agencies of
the State as they relate to expenditure of funds
appropriated by a general appropriation bill, It
is the responsibility of the Attorney General to
determine the legislative intent, does not modify,
amend or repeal any existing legislation and is
consistent with the present general law. Such
language constitutes merely a declaration by the
Legislature of the already existing law. Whether
such harmless declaration should or should not be
made is within the sound discretion of the Legis-
lature.
Yours very truly,
WAGGONER CARR
Attorney General
Assistant
JR:ms
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
J. C. Davis
Pat Bailey
Jack Goodman
W. 0. Shultz
APPROVEDFOR THE ATTORNEYGENERAL
By: Stanton Stone
-2132-