Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

August 25, 1951 Hon. Allan Shivers OpinionNo. V-l.254 Governorof Texas Austin,Texas Re: Validityof "riders"in H.B. 426, Acts 52nd Legislature, 1951; the generalappropria- tion bill for the biennium Dear GovernorShivers: ending August 31, 1953. In your original.requestfor an opinionyou asked that we studythe legalityand ccmstltutionality of the riders in House Bill 426, Acts 52nd Leg., KS., 1951, snd adviseyou as to our concluslonsas early as possible. In subsequentcon- ferencesyou Xndlcatedthat'ymsrs primarilyinters*ed in ss- curingthe rulesoflawapplicabls ln&tendningthslegality or constitutlomlltyof riders In an approprlatlon bill. You s'kated~thatin vlew'ofthe h&ding In Fulmo& v. Lane, 104 Tex. 499, l&C SiW. 405 (19l.l)and Att&ney GenerBl'sOpinionNo. V-1196 (1951)that the Governorhas no authorityto veto a non- appropriating ri$er In an appropriationbill, you are particular- lyconcernsdajmutthe growlngtendencyt~rd "governmen by riders'and desirea general*ateme& of the rules of law ap- plicableto rldsrsratherthan a specificruling on each sepa- rate rider. With this in n&&we shallpresentthe general rules.andrefer to specificriders only by'way of illusttition as to howthg generalrules are applied. Gsne++y speaking,the constitution@. provision limitdngt&. scope of riders in gsneralappropriation bills and the power of the Legislaturewith regardthereto is Sec- tion 35 of.ArticleIII of the Te%as Constitution: In addition, Section1 of ArticleII is sometimesapplicable. The historyof Section35 of ArticleIII and discus- slons,b$cont.emp+ry juristsgive an insightinto the evils by its adoption. Sect&n which ~rs intendedto be corrsctefl 35 p~oviaes:~ ."Nobill, (exceptgeneralappropriation bills, which may embracethe various subj&ts ad accounts, for and on accountof which moneys are apprdprlated) shall containmore thsn one subject,which shallbe expressedin its title. But if any subjectshallbe embracedin an act, which shall not be expressedin 158 Hon. Allan Shiv-eSS, PW3e 2 (v-1254) the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof,as shsllnot be so expressed." A similarprovisionoriginallyappearedin Section24 of ArticleVII of the *eras Constitutionof 1845 as follows: "J?xerylawenectedbythe Legislatureshallem- brace but one object,sndthat shallbe expressedin the title." Thiswasthe first time inTexas historythatanat- tempt was made to controlthe title and inclusiveness of legis- lation. The Constitutions of 1861, 1866, and 1869 carriedfor- ward the wordingwithoutchange. .Indiscussingthebe&groundoftheTexasprovision cplef Justice0. M. 'Roberts, a memberof the 1866 Convention anda contempoFaryofthisperlod,said: Yl!h%sprovl+xainthe Constitutionor~giaate~ in, andwas adoptedtopreventthe repetitionofamost flagwit cibue of legislativepower inthe State of Georgiainthe la¢ury. Its historylsbriefiy sketchedinenopinion&eliveredinthe Supremecourt of that State,a6 follows,to wit: *As to the objec- tionthat the act of l&is violative'ofthe17th sec. lst art. of the Constituti&of Georgie,becausel~e tit~"la at variancewith the body of the cd, I would obeervethatthetraditionaryhietorJrofthisclause ls,'thetit was insertedin the Constitutionof 1798, atthe'iwta&e of'GeneralJauk?sJackson, andthat its necessitywas suggestedby the Yaeoo act. 'That meiwrablemeasureof tti~li'th of Jsne, 1795; as ie&.lknown,wwe smugg&edthroughtheLegislature under the captian.ofsn act, "for the kymsnt of & let& State troopa,"and a declarationin its title of the right of the State to the unappropriatedterritory thereof,"for the protectionend supportof Its fron- tier settlements." (Mayorsnd Aldermanof Savannah v. The State of Georgia,4 Ga., 38.) This obnoxious act was repealed'thenext year, and the large grant of land to privateindividualsembracedin it declared. null and void for fraud in its enactent. This z&t becams stillmore notoriouslymemorableby its tibjed- matterbeing litigated,and its historybeing devel- oped in the report of the leadingcase of Fletcherv. Peck, decidedby the SupremeCourt of the United States in 1816. (6 Cranch,U.S., 87.) Hon. Allan Shivers,F'age3 (V-1254) "Hencethis provisionlimitingthelegislative power, hasbeen adoptedinmnyif not most of the Constitutionsof the differentStates of ths Union. djlngsv. San Antonio,47 Tex. 548, 555, ;5i &3;;.- In 1851 the Texas'Suprene court, in an opinionby Chief JusticeHemphill,held that Section24 of ArticleVII rasmlaatory,notmerelyairectory. The evils to be avoidedby this constltutionallimi- tation have been discussedin iumerousc&es. Typical of these discussionsis the followingfrom Stons v. Brown, 54 Tex. 330 (188lrat 342, in which the SupremeCourt of Texas said: "Ths principalobjectof this constitutional pro- vieion la to advisethe lsgislaturstid the people of the naturs of each particularbill, so as to prevent the insertionof obnoxiousclauses,which other@e might be engraftedthereuponand become the law; and aleo $0 preventconibinations,whsrsbyw+dbs concen- ttitedthe votes of the friendsof differsntmeasurk .f nohe of which could pass singly;thus causingeach bill to stand on its own merits.3 In CooleytsConstitutional Ll.mi~at,ions (8thEd. 1927) 295, ths purposeof the constitutional provisionis -ised as follows: n. . . It rcay.therefore be assumedas settled that the purposeof thess provisionswas: first,to :prevsnthedge-podgeor 'log-rolling' .&egisl$$; second,to preventsurpriseor fraud upon the legisla- ture by means of provisionsin bills of which the title,s, .g .Georgiawas the first State to place this type of limi- tation in its constitution.There are now 41 Statesthat have provisionsof this generalnature. &ly connectic.ut, Maine, Mas- sachusetts,New Bampehire,North Carolina,Rhode Islandand Ver- mont are withoutit. ConstStutional Limitationsupon Statute Tltles.inLouisiana,6 La. LA 72, 78 (Comment1944). g Cannonv. Hemphill,7 Tex. 184 (1851). .1/ Similargtatementsare found in the g&era1 treatises,of Freud, Standardsof AmericanLegislation,155, 156; 1 Sutherland Statutoryconstruction(3rdEd. 1943) 287, Sec. 1702; 1 Cool6yle Constitutional Limitations(8thEd. 1927) 294, 295, 296. Hon. Allsn Shivers,Page 4 (V-1254) gave no Intimation,and which might thereforebe over- lookedand carelesslyandunintentianallyadoptea; and, third,to fairlyapprisethe people,throughsuch publicationof legislativeproceedingsas is usually made, of the subjectsof legislationthat are being considered,in or&r that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon,by petitionor otherwise,if they shall so desire." In 1 Sutherland,StatutoryConstruction(3rdEd. 1943) 290, it is stated: ". . . It preventsthe surreptitious passageof laws containingprovisionsincongrouswith the subject proclaimedin the title. It militatesagainst 'omnibus,' or multi-subjectlegislation, the practiseof procuring dlves~ anduurelatedmatterstobe passedas one act throughthe consolidated vote of.thcadvocates of each separatemaasure,whenuerhausuo sinalemeasurecould ha& been pasf&~oz.i its-ownmerits. It also prevents the attachmsutof uudeeirable!riders~upon:bille kek- passed beeause'oftheir.~lic,~~ taln to 'be' ity oFdesirability." (Emphasisadded throughout:)"' The last sentenceabove quoted frOm Sutherlandis. partlcula+y applicableto geueralapprop&tion bills..It is c&tAinthattheyare desirableand.iufad necessarylegis- lii+,ion.Asausu&thiug,thist~ ofbill comesup fo+&ui +?T8tion late IIIthe E~SS~OII and mu& bepassed. Ev&;permis- sibli and appropriateridersare often attachedin conference committee,and the entirebill is submittedto the House slidthe Senate on a."takeor leave it" vote. Iu such instances,there is no opportunityfor-publicnotice,full discussion,~amsndment, or eliminationof a particularrider. Legislatorsare called upon to vote for the entirebill as draftedby the conference committeeor vote againstthe entirkbilli In the sams manner,the entire generalappropriation bill is submittedto the Governor. Ik can veto appropriation items and riders,but he doe6 not have the power to veto non- appropriating riders. AttorneyC+eral's opinionNo..V-llg6 (1951). If an objectionable matter of generallegislationis containedin a non-appropriating rider, the Governormust never- thelessaccept it or else veto the entire generalappropriation act. :Thishe can seldomaffordto do. The constitutional limitationnow under consideration was aimad at praventingsuch situations.T,hiswas statedby the Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 5 (V-129) SupremeCourt of PennsylvanIa,a State which has a similarcon- stitutionalprovision,in Commonwsalthv. Barustt,1% Pa. 161, 48 Atl. 976 (lgol),as followsz 11 . . . by joininga number of differ& subjectsin one bill the governor was put under compulsionto ac- cept sons enactmentsthat hs could not approve,or to defeatthe whole, includingothersthat he thought desirableor even necessary. Such bills, popularly called *omnibusbills,'became a cryingevil, not ouly from the confusionand distractionof the legislative mind by the jumblingtogetherof incongroussubjects, but stillmore by the facilitythey affordedto cor- rupt combinations of minoritieswith differentinter- ests to force the passageof bills with provisions which could mver succeedif they stood,onthsirsepa- rate merits. So,~omon was this practicethat it got a popularname. universallyunderstood,as ~logrolling.' A kill more objectionabls~practice grew up, of putting what is known as a 'rider'(that is, a new~andunrelated enactmentor provision)on ths ~appropriationbill~, and' thus'kokrcingtheexecutiveto approve'obnoxioils legis- lation,or bring the wheels of.ths governmentto a stop for want of funds. Thesewere some ofthe evilswhich the later changesin the constitution were intendedto nm?dy* . .." Again with specificreferenceto the reasonfor this type of constltutlonailimitation in the case of appropriation . bills,tha SuprktsCourt ofOregon +a: The evidentpurposeof this provisionwas to preventmsttersforeignto the generalpurpo* of ap- propriationbills being attachedto them as riders, therebytakingadvantageof the necessityof the state for money to defrayits currentexpensesand to pay its officersto pass measurasthat perhapswould other- wise have been defeated." Evsnhoffv. State Industrial AccidantCommission,154 .Pac.106, 111 (1915). Three changeswere made in the wordingof this Article IJAthe c~stituth of 1876. The provisionwas moved from the GeneralProvisionssectionof the Constitutionto the Iegisla- tive Sectionwhere it became Section35 of Article III, with the wording it has today, It is quoted in full on page 1 of'this opinion. The reasonsforthethree changesare readilyapparent. The exceptionmade for appropriation bills was to insurethat no courtwould hold the appropriationfor each subjector account Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 6 (V-3254) a separategeneralsubjectand as a resulti-squire a multiplic- ityofappropriationbills;audths savingclausswas addsdto preventthe strikingdownofths whole ofths Act. The other basic chauge,from the use of ths word "object"to "subject," has been explainedas ping an attemptto m&e the whole provi- sion less restrictive. The generalpurposeand objectof the constitutionalprovisionremainsdths ssms. In dealingwith Section35 of ArticleIII, a ruls of liberalinterpretation has alwaysbeen applied. Ths tendency of the dscislonsis to construethe constitutioual provisions onthis subjectliberallyrathsrthanto embarrasslegislation by a construction whose strictnessis -cessary to the accom- pllshmsntof the beneficialpurposefor which it was adopted.5 But at the same tims the Court has been carefulto point out, as was orlgiuallydons by Chief JusticeHemphlllin Cannonv. Hemphill;7 Tax. 184, 208 (1851),that t&is provisioncanuotbe ignoredand thus nullified. ,Withreferenceto generalappropriation bills, ths SupremeCourt of Texas has held that "the appropriatingoffunds to be paid from the StateTreasuryis's ~mibject~~withiu he mesuingof ArticleIII, Ssdion 35, of oul.constitution." 2 It is clear frouths terms of the constitutional provisionthat geueralappropriationbillsmaycontainmorethan ens subject of this sanbsnature,i.e., appropriations for the variousde- partxfsntsand accounts. The exceptlouof generalappxopriation bills from the constitutionalprohibitiou againstbills.contaiu- ing more than one subjectis a limitedand restrictedexception. The exact wordingIs ". . . except generalappropriation bills, which may embracethe varioussubjectsand accounts,for and on accountof.whichmoneysaFe to bs appropriated . . .II As long as a gene-1 appropriationbill includesonly subjectsof appropriatingmoney and likitingthe use thereofin harmonywith generallegislation,it may relateto any numberof UJ 'Stone.v.Brown,~54 Tex. ,330,341~(1881),and Travelers ProtectiveAssociationof Americav. Ziegler,250 SiW. lll5, I..u~, .(.Tex. Civ. App. 1923, error ref.). I/ Giddingsv. San Antonio,47 Tex. 548 (1877);Dellinger v. State,28 S,Wi2d 537 (Tex. Grim. App. 1933). q Moore v. Sheppard, 144 Tex. 537, 192 S.W.2d 559 (1946). Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 7 (V-1254) different"subjectsand accounts." In suchimtancesallof the subjectsa.r$under the one generalpbjectand purpose of appmprfatingfhde fromthetreasury. !i!he obviou?purposeof this l.kited.~xceptionwastolPahe certaintb&.appropriations to more than one departmentin the same bill would not be pro- hibited. In all other respectsgeneralappropriation bills are subjectto the 88013prohibitionas all otherbills against contalnlngmore than one subject. The result is that general legislationcsmotbe embodiedulthina generalappropriation bill. Moore v. Sheppard,supra. A generalappropriationbillmaybe deflnedas a single bill which appropriatesfunds for two or more departments,sub- jects,accounts,or purposes. Ithasthe one generalpurposeor mbject matterof appropria&g money.7 Oenerallegislationdaagmorethanappmpriate money andl+titsexpsImtllre. AssaidbyafonssrAtto~yGeneral a opipronNo. 2965 0935)p *. . . iithcBilldoeemonthansetael~a~of monsy,providethe means of its.'di&ributlon,and tO vhom it shallbe distributed,then it is .ageneral lav...;" Thus,the distindionbetvpen~ralappropriatian bU and e=nersllagi+Wion has been r+tgni+ irithie state . . Inthe ~h@lefactthatthe formrmerely@ts apa$suq of' molrapf~gaAfic obJ+ganduseswhilethe lattardqepmore than+Myappropriateandlimittheuse~f~iunds. C&neral legislationConstituteeaseuaratem&S&t andcannotbe ln- clkdwlthlna generalappr~priakmbiil. Moo&v. Sheppard, supra;Att'y Gen..Op.2965, mpra. This does not mean 4hat ge!qal legislationmay not containanappropriatlanwhichismere~ incidentaltoaudneces- sexy to carry out the subjectand purpose of.the generaljaw. u The Arizonfr S&ems Court has said:- The generalappro-. priationbillieno~ inthetrue sense of the Wxqlegislation; it is, as the lauguageImplies,merely a settingapart of the funds necessaryfor the use andmaintenanceof the v&riousdepart- mznts of the &ate governmentalready inexistence andtiction~ ins." Sellersv. Fn&miller, 24 P.2d 666, 669 (Aris.Sup:l933). TheNevadaSup- Court has said: 'The?+approp~iationbille~ as indicatedby the titles,are p+sed fv cpp+ ef the s+&e- government, and are pot legislativeacts changingtk, +zbstantive orgenerallaws. . . ." State v..Eggem, 136 Pac. 100, 101 (Nev. slip:1913). .Hon.Allan Shiv'qs,Page 8 (v-129) AttorneyCensral*sOpinionNo. 2965, supra. Neitherdoss it meanthata generalappropriationbFUm~~ynotcontain~ral provisionsaad.~taFlslimitingandr‘estrictingt~use of the fundsthereinappropriated, if.suchprovisionsare necessarily connectedwith and incidentaltoths aooropriation and use of ths funds and if they do not conflictiith-or. amountto general legislation.Conleyv. Daughtersof the Republic,106 Tex. 80, 156 S.W. 197 (qu). Th? generalrule with referenceto all bills was stated by the SupremeCourt of Texas in Phillipsv. Daniel,94 S.W.2d 1193, llfl'(Tex.Civ. App. 1936, error ref.),as follows: "The law is settledthatunderthe Constitutional provisionreferredto @tlcle III, Section3fl auy num- ber of provisionsmay be containedin the samsbill or act,houeverdivsrsatheymaybs; the only requirement beingthatthsyare conslstentuithths generalobJect or subJect,andhava amutualralationsndconnsdion, dQedlyor indirectly,withths generalsubjector ob- ject of the act or bill." With specialregardtowhat incidentalprovisionsmay bs includedwithin a generalappropr~iation bill, our Texas courts have not stateda general.rule..I@ever, from statementsas to what may not bs includedand from numsrousopinionsof the Attor- nqGeneral,ve~belie~the ru&sniqbe state!generallyas fol- lows:-Inadditiontd appropriatingmoneyandstipulatingthe amount,namer, and purposeof the varlous~itemsof expsnditure, a generalappropriation bill may containany provisionsorelders which detail,limit,or restrictthe use of the funds or othsr- wise inkrethatthemoneyis spantforthe requiredactivity for which It is thereinappropriated,if.theprovisionsor riders are necessarilyconnectedwith and incidentalto the appropriation and use of the funds,and providedthey do not conflictwith gen- eral legislation.8 g AttorneyGeneral'sOpinionNo. 2965 (1935) saysthat we' shouldbe governedby the ordinarilyacceptedsksaning of "Appro- priationBill" and quotesas accepteddefinitionsthefollowing: "*A settingapart from the public rsvenueof a certain-aimof money for a specificobject in such a msnnerthat the executiveofficersof the government ars authorizedto use thatmoney.and no more for that objectand for no other.' C.J. -iol.,~4, pa@ 1460. "Websterdefinesan appropriation bill as follows: "'A measurebefore a legislativebody authorieing the expenditureof.publicmoneys and stipulating the amount,manner,and purpose of the various items of expenditures.'" Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 9 (V-1254) In supportof this generalstatementof the rule we call your attentionto the cass of Lindenv. Finley,92 Tex. 451, 49 S.W. 578 (l&p), in which the SuprenwCourt of Texas said: "Thereis nothingin the Constitutionwhich prohibitsthe Legis- lature from limitingsny appropriation by any apt words exprss- sive of their intent." Also, in Conlsyv. Daughtersof the Re- public,106 Tex. 8C, 156 S.W. 197 (1913),the Court uphelda pro- vision in &general appropriation bill which requiredthat funds appropriatedthereinfor improvementof the Alamo propertywere to be expsndsdupon approvalof the Governor. The Court said: "It cannotbethata separateand independentlaw wouldbe necessaryto directand controlthe expendi- ture of every item of appropriation." Courts of severalother Stateswith similarconstitu- tlonalprovisionshave appliedthis generalrule. A riders that limitedexpensesfor transportation, lodgingand subsistence to a $5 per day maxlnnnawas held valid in New Mexico. The Suprsms Court ofthat'.Statesaid, "!l!hsdetailsof spendingthemoney so a~~~~d,~irhichslp necessarilyconnsctedwithand. . . . . . don0tviolatethe Ccmstitutioniiincorporated in such generalappropriation bill." Whittierv. Safford,214 Pac. 759 (N. Msx. Sup. 1923). The MississippiSiiprems Court has said: :Ths legislaturscan providsin bills makingappropria- tions for the expenditureof the monsy, andths conditionson whicli.itmaybe drawn+e~thetreasory, add for the administra- tion of the fund so long'asthe machinerycreatedis'limitedto ths appropriationso made." Trotterv. Gates & Co.; &I So; 843, 846 (Miss.Sup. 1932). TheSuprsmeCourtofi4ontana,inholding that a rider inanappropriationbill changingths methodof paymsntout of a designatedfund is valid, said, ". . . so long as incidentalprovisionsof an appropriation bill are germane to ths purposeof the appropriationit does not conflictwith any Constitutional provision. . . . What valid objectioncan bs interposedto such a course,so long as the Legislatureconfines the incidentalprovls.ions to the main fakt of the appropriation, and does not attemptto incorporatein such act generallegisla- tion, not necessarilyor directlyconnectedwith the appropria- tionlegally made, under the restrictionsof the sectionin @Lest Davi.dson.v..Ford,l!~Lp..2h-~3~..3~.(Mont. Sup. F" 1943). e/ ~Cnlythe State of Florida,where the Constitution pro- vides that the appropriationbill shall coutainnothingbut appro- priations,holds that any rider which in fact doss not appropriate money is'invalid. Lee v. Dowda, 19 So.2d 570 (Fla. Sup. 1944). 166 . Hall. AlLanShiPe~%Pal+'l.o (V-1254) This lnterpretatianoftherule applicabletorlders ina generalapproprlationbillunderSection35 of ArticleIII has been followedby the Texas Legislatum for msuy ysars. It has continuouslyprovidedforaccolmtingprocedures inconzbx- tlon with the funds appropriated,limited~theuse of coutiagent expenseappropriations, set the rates fortravslexpeusstobe paid from the fundsto State employees,spscifiedthstime of 'paymentof salariesappropriated, and.prohibitsd use of appro- priatedfmds forpaymntof salariesto "snyemployee.who uses alcoholicbew?raSeswhile on active duty" or who engagesin cer- tain politicalactivities. Riders ofthis natureinths general appropriationbillareconstitutional,becausethsynrnlyds- tail,limit,orrsstrlctthe use of the fundsappropriatedor otherwIseinsursthatthe-ywillbeussdforthe purposes i&en&d. liventhe riders prohibitingpaymentof salariesto thosewho consumsalcoholicbeverageswhilsondutyorwhoen- gage in politicalactivitiesare legitimateswans of inmuing that the purposeoft&s appropriationwillnotbs defeatedand thsnoneywastedonenployeaswho carryonunauthorlsedactivi- ties daringthe time for which thay 85e bain~ p$dto'attendto t&s stats'sbus~ss. IntheTexasLegislative'Manual.(1~), page 263, this typi of provisionIs referredto as "a condition attachedto au appropriation, upon failureto complywith which the appropriatldnwillcease to be effective." See also pags 224. .Approprfationbillriderswhich violateSsctlon35 of ArticleIIXhave beenmore fr&ua&lydiscusssdbythe dourts: snd the AttorneyGsneral'thanthos,awhich are propsrlywithinthe scopeof‘suclibills. The majority of l&s rider.6which have been strichurarethosewhichattempttomodiiyoramanda~ral statute. It is well settledin this State that a rider attached to a aeneralaimronriationbill cannotrewal. nodifyor amend an existingg&r& law. State v..Steele;r(-Tex.203 (18&Z); Llndenv. Finley,92 Tex. 451, 4.9'S.W.578 (l&J); Attorney GeneaX's OpinionsNo. 1745 (19171,2787 (19291,2965 (19351, 2970 (1935);0-445 (1g39j1. o,-1837~i1940),~0-2573(wo);-0.~5329 (1g43),v-412 (1947),and v-894 (1949). In Statev. Steele, supra,Linden Y. Finlsy,supra,am AttornsyGeneral'sOginions1745, 2787, 2965, mpra, it was held that gnsral statutesfirinS salariesor fees couldnot be amen& by a generalappropriation bill. Riders providingfor uss or transferof specialfunds contraryto generalstatuteswhich pro- vided for a differentdepositor use were hsldunconstitutional by AttorneyGeneral'sOpinions2970 (1935),O-5329(19431,and V-412 (1947). A rider requiringthree years residenceinTexas beforebeing adatittedto the State TuberculosisSanatoriumwhen Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 11 (V-1254) the generalstatuterequiredonly citizenshipin Texas was held invalidin AttornsyGeneral’s OpinionO-2573 (194'3). Generallegislationattemptedin a'generalappropria- tion bill, even thoughnot desiguedto modify or amend au exist- ing statute,was condemnedby the SupremeCourt of Texas in Moore v. Sheppard,supra. In that case the Legislaturshad provi&Z-- by rider iu the appropriation bill that the Clerks of the Courts of Civil Appeals shoulddepositall unofficialfees collected ,bythsm in the StateTreasuryand that they shouldnot be paid their salariesuntil and unless they filed au affidavitshoving compliancetharewith.Moors refusedto complyand broughtsuit to requirepaymentof his salary. The Couxtrenderedjudgmsnt in his favor upon the groundsthat the rider attemptedto fir fees of officeand that this was a subjectof geuerallegisla- tion separateaudapart fromappropriatingmoneyandtherefors unconstitutional.The Court said: "Phatthe fixingof officialfees is a matter of generallegislation, and is a *subJect'of generallegis- lationwithin the IssaIling of ArticleIII, Section35, above, cannotbs questioned. . . . n. . . that portionof the AppropriationBill setting out for ths firsttime mattersnot germansthereto, and dealingwith gsnexallegislationon the different sndwhollymrelated ‘subject of fees chargedbypstl- tiohersfor unofficialcopies,andprsscribingths dis- positionof such fees, is in conflictwith the mandate of Article III, Section35, and is unconstitutional. . . ." A similarrulingwasmads bythe AttorneyGeneralof Texas in OpinionO-445 (1939)writtenby former.As6ociat.e Justice James P. Hart concerninga rider which prohibitedState employees from acceptingor using passes Issuedby transportation agencies. In this opinionit was said: 'The anti-passprovisionsof the appropriation bill do not constitutea regulationof the manner in which the sums appropriatedthereinshallbs expended. If construedas an impliedamendmentof the general statutesprohibitingthe issuanceof free passes by transportation agencies,said provisionswould be in- valid since a generallaw'maynot be amendedby provi- sions of a generalappropriation bill. See State v. Steels,57 Tex. 200; Lindenv. Finley,92 TeX. 451."10 9 This riderwas also held unconstitutional becauseit was not coveredby the captionof the act. Hon..AllanShivem, Page l2 (V-1254) Examplesof valid and invalidridersin HouseBill 426, the generalappropriation bill for the bieuniumendingAugust 31, 1953, may be found in Subdivision(15) of Section2, ArticleIII, relatingto State-ownedautomobiles.The valid riderprovides: ,I . . . No motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehi- cle may be purchasedwith any of the fundsappropriated in this Article, . . ." Thisisa constitutionalriderbecause it dossnoxorethanlimit and restrictuse of the.fondsappropriatedby HouseBill 426. The invalidrider readsas follows: ."AllState-ownedmotor-propelled passenger- carqing vehiclesunder the controlof any department, conmission,board, or otherStateagencyars hereby declarsdtobe nolongerneeded. Suchmotor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles shallbe sold in compli- - with and as providedfor in Article666, Revised Civil Statutesof Texas,as amended,or otherwiseas providedby law, not laterthan October1, 1951. . . . provided,however,that theseprovisionsof this Ssc- tion in regardto the sale and purchaseof motor- propelledpassenger-carrying vehiclesshallnot apply to the ExecutiveDepartment,StateHighwayDepartment, Departmentof Pulbic Safety,Cuss,Fish and Oyster Ccmds*ion, and the Railroad~ssion, providedthat th+RailroadConmlssionshallonlykeepandhavs in its possessionnot to.exceedtwenty (20)motor-propelled passenger-camyfngvehiclesand the Texas PrisonSystem shall only keep and have in Its possessionthosevehi- cles equippedwith two-wayradios. Noticesshallbe given in +M.ng to personsnow using said vehicles of the time and place they are goingto be sold &order that such persons may have an opportunityto bid on said motor-propelled passenger-carryingvehicles." Ths forsgoingrider is not incidentaltothe appropria- tion of money or 'alimitationor restrictionof the use of money appropriatedby House Bill 426. It relatesto an entirelydif- ferent subjectand is generallegislation prohibitedby Section 35 of.ArticleIII of the Constitution.Att,orney Gsneral'sOpinion No..V-1253 (1951). This rider illustrates the reason for the con- stitutional~prohibition againstgenerallegislationin an appropria- tion bill. As pointedout in the above opinion,if this type of legislationwere valid, it would be possiblefor the Legislatureto providefor the sale of the State'sofficebuildingsor the public 169 Eon. AlUmShivers, Page 13 (V-1254) schoollands ina generalappropriationbill. Clearly,the sala of State-owsedautomobilesand other.propsrty,in the words of the SupremsCourt inMoore v. Sheppard,supra,is ona "dif- ferentand whollyurirelated subject"froivapproppiatingfunds. This rider is also unconstitutional becausethe captionof the bill gives no noticewhateverof its presencein the bill. At- torney General'8opinionv-l.253(1951). As previouslypointedout, riders in an appropriation bill may sosetisk?s conflictwith Section1 of ArticleII of ths Texas Constitution,which provides: DThepowersof the Coverumentof the Stats of Tees shallbe dividedinto three distinctdepartments, each of which shall be confidedto a separatebody of maglst.racy,to wit: Those which are Isgislativeto one; those which are Executiveto anotheriaudthosewhich ire Judicialto another;and no parson or collectionof perffons,being of one of these departments,shallexer- ciss auy power propsrlyattachedto either of the others, exceptin the instsncesherein expresslypermitted.? The LegislativeBudgetBoard, composedofthe Speaker and four Ho&z membersappointedby him (includingChairmanof tlw Appropriations Comittee and Chairmenof Revenueand Tsxa- tionCommittee)audthe LieutenagtGovernorand four Senateem- krsappointed~hhim(inclubingCbsirmanofFinancc Committee and Chairmsnof StateAffairsCommittee)was createdby Senate sill 387,.Acts 51t3tLeg., R.S., l$+g,'ch.k@, 'p.,906(Art. 5kZgc,V.C.S.) to serve in an iuvestlgatoryaudadvisokycapa- city with respectto proposedappropriations.The Board'sfunc- tions Eve supplementary to those of the Board of Controland the Covernogas alreadyprescribedin Articles68ga:lthrough6&a-7, V.C.S. Article6&a ime amsndsdby Senate Bill 413, Acts 52n8 m., R.S., 1951, ch. 332, p. 572. There is no constitutioual questioninvolvedin creationof such au advisorylegislativebudget conmittee. 1' But the same Legislature,in a rider to its generalappropria- tion bill for the Beard for Texas State Hospitalsend Special Schools,went furtherin subjectingthe expenditureof trans- ferredfunds and unexpendedbalancesby the Texas State Board for Hospitalsand'Spedal Schoolsto the approvalof the il.J~Ter+ll v. King, 118 Tex. 237, 14 S.W.2d786 (1929). Eon. Allan Shivers,Page 14 .(v-1254) I2 LegislativeBudgetBoard. In like vein, the Fifty-secondIegislaturehas appended severalsimilarridersto its generalappropriation bill, as fol- lows: The LegislativeBudgetCommitteebid is here- by authorizedto requirequarterlybudget approvalprior to the expenditureof enyofthe fuuds appropriatedto the departmentsend agenciesof the State of Texas in this Ad. Suchreq~~ntwhenFxercisedshallbe made by filingwrittennoticewith the State Comptrollerand writtendirediim with the departmentor agency. After tich notice,no moneys hereinappropriatedshallbe ex- pendeduntil such budget approvalshallhave been se- curea." ArticleIII, Section2, cbd. (34),LB. 426, Acts 52nd Leg., 19.51. nBuD(;gTAPPROVALJ6ENREQUISED.The Ie@+.etive BudgetBoard is hereby authorizedto requirethe sub- mimion of a budget for Ws approvalprior to the ex- pepdltun of any of the funds appropriatedto the St&e institutions of highereducationand to thepther edu- cationalagenciesof the St&e of Texes nan~d in his &kg article. Suchrequirement,whenexercised,shall be made by filingwrittennoticewith the State.Comptrol- ler a&written dir&&ion with the institutionor ageky. After the effectivedate providedin ech notice,no man- eys hereinappropriatedshellbe expendeduntil such budget approvalshallbeen Bid beefisecured. The au- thority&rantedby this peragraphshallbe exercised only in emergncies. The LegislativeBudgetBoard dalYdetermine when such an emergency~exists." Arti- cle V, Sectiw’16, LB. ,426,Acts 52nd L&g., 1951. / "QuarterlyBudgets. The tigislativeBudgetR&d shall requirequarterlybudget approval.prior to the ob- ligation~orexpknditti of any of the'fundsappropriated to the Board institutionsand the Centrd Officeti this Article& No moneys herein appropriatedshallbe expended until such budget kpprovalshall have been secured.!'Ar- ~ticieII, Section14, 'E.B.~ 426, Acts 52nd Leg., 1951. 'a Section18(b)'and(c), House Bill 321, Acti 5lst Leg.9 R.S.,~1949;ch.842, pt 1084. Non. Al.LsnShivers,Page 15 (V-1254) Since the State departments,institutionsof higher education,and other State institutionsare not a part of the legislativebranchof the State government,these rider6, in requiringfurtheritemizationof appropriations or approval of the expenditureof appropriatedfunds by the Legislative BudgetBoard, violatethe constitutional provisionprescrib- ..ingthe separationof powers. The phrase "any power properlyattack&to either of the others"promptsinquiryas to what powersbelongto each branch. "Legislative" mans %zking, or havingthe power to make, a law or laws." Webster'6New lnternationel Diction- ary (2dEd. 1938). This includesmakIng and itemizingappro- priations. :YChf.power to itemizeappropriation8 is a legisla- U-power which it may exerciseif it sees fit as long as'the is in its hanas. The legislationis completewhen the appropriation-is &&.+ People v. Tremaiue,I.68N.E. 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 19s). The money once appropriated, the Le&slature Is no longerauthorizedto concernitselfwith the fin-ther seg- regationand disbursementof the funds,the constitutional in- hibitionbeing not only againstactualusurpztionof the func- tion, but also againstone departztent's settingItselfup in a supervisorycapacityover the actionsof another.l3 Paren- thetically,it maybe notedherethat if the approvalofpro- posdexpenditures'beconsi&redalegislatlve function,still. such functioncouldno be delee;ated by the body as a whole to a'few of its zembers.lfi The legislativefunctionbeing to make laws, the execu- tive iunctionis to carry them out. Webster'sNew International Dictionzry(2dEd. 1938), in Its definitionof "executive," uses the phrases"or carryinginto effect" . . . "or zecurestheir due performance."More specifically, the fizcaladministration of the affairsof the governuetihas been held to be an execu- tive duty.15 The above ridersthus attemptto vest au execu- tive power in a joint cozmitteeof the legislativebranch. AlthoughTexas cases upholdingthe separationof powers are too nmrterous to requirecitation,one exampleof an unwar- rantedlegislativeinterference with the executivedepartmentis the strikingdown of Article803a, V.P.C.., which prescribedthe u Cooley'sConstitutional Li$tations (8thEd. 1927) 227. w Ex parte Youngblood,251 S,W. 509 (Tex. Grim.App. 1923). w In re Opinionof the Justices,68 AtL.873 (N.H. Sup. 1907). HCJL Al&an Shivers,Page 16 (V-U*) to be worn by peace officersmskingarrests Other ju.rlsdictions likewiseabound in case authority. The United StatesSupremeCourt struckdown an act of the Philip- pine Legislature,creatinga gove-nt-ownedbsnkandcoalcom- pany end vestingthe voting power thereofin a codttee includ- inp the Presidentof the Senateand the Speakerof the House of Representatives, as au attemptto engraftexecutivedutiesupon a legisla vs officeand thus usurp the executivepower by indi- rection.if Similarly,an act creatinga legislativecommittee onStatewaterrightswasheld invalidwherethe court foundthat the b@3lhuX! hadnot only&d? a &~Wbutn!a e a joint commit- tee its executiveagent to carry out the law.18 A New York decisionexactlyin point, conc+rningan appropriationfetteredby a provisionthat the money appropriated k spent ouly with.approvalof two legislativeofficers,held un- constitutionalthe provisionof StateFinanceLaw, # 139, re- quirlngsuch approval,the Court of Appeals saying: 'The Legislaturehas not only mads a law--i.e., an appropriation--but has made two of its membersex officioits executiveagentsto carry out the law; i.e., to act on the segregationof the appropriation. This is a clear and ccmspicuousinstanceof au attempt bythe Legislatursto conferadmluistrative power upon Go Of ItS owu members." Peoplev. Tremaine;168 N:E. 817, 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929). AttorneyGeneral'sOpinionNo. O-4609 (1942)is also in point. That opinionconst~eB a rural aid appropriation bill (H.B. 284, Acts 47th Leg., R.S., 1941, ch. $9, p. 880). In that statutea joint legislativeadvisorycomnittee,composed of five Senatemembersand five House members,was given power to approvenumeroustransactions,includingthe receiptof tui- tion paymentand @anspotiation aid by schooldistricts. The AttorneyGeneralruled that only so much'ofthe act as created a joint 1egisLativeadvisoFycommitteeto study schoollaws as an aid to their recodification was constitutional,whereasthe provisionsimposingupon said committeeof the Legislaturethe authorityto administerthe law were unconstitutional. ,_ l6J Scogginv. State, 38 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. Grim.App. 1931). II/ Springerv. PhilippineIslands,277 U.S. 169, 202 (1927) W StOCkmanV- L-=aaY,55 Colo. 24, I29 Pac. 220 (1912). 173 Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 17 (V-1254) Therefore,in so far as the powersend dutiesof the LzgislativeBudgetBoard are extendedin HouseBill 4.26beyond the dutiesprescribedfor that Board in the statuteby which it was created,the Legislaturehas attemptedto placeupon the Board dutieswhich are in violationof Section1 of ArticleII of the Terns Constitution. HouseBill 426 containsa total of 235 riders. Their validityor invaliditycan be determiuedin most instancesby applyingto each specificrider the generalrules herelnstated. In some instances,however,the question&ay be closeenoughto require additionalopinions. At this time severalopinionrequestsare pendingin this officerelatingto the validityof specificriderswhich hzve not been discussedin this opinion. We shallbe pleased to furnishyou a copy of each additionalop$nionas it is corn- pletd. In so far as Section35 of ArticleIII of the Texas Constitutionis concerned,in aaditionto ap- propriating money and stipulatingthe amount,msnuer, and purposeof the variousitems of expenditure to variousdepartments and accounts,a generalapproprla- tion bill may containeny provisions.or riderswhich deteil,limit,or restrictthe use of the fun&3 or otherwiseinsurethat the money is spentfor the re- quiredactivityfor which it is thereinappropriated, if the provisionsor ridersare necessarilyconnected with and incidentalto the appropriation and provided they do not conflictwith generallegislation. Ridersprovidingfor accountingproceduresin connection with the funds appropriated,lImitlugthe use of contingentexpenseappropriations; settingthe rates for travelexpenseto be paid from the.fundsto Stateemployeea,specifyingthe time of paymentof ,~~lzries appropriated and prohibitingthe use of ap- propriatedfunds for the paymentof salariesto "any employeewho uses alcoholicbeverageswhile on active duty" or.whoengagesin certainpoliticalactivities are valid in a generalappropriation bill because they merelydetail,limit,or restrictthe use of the fwds appropriated or otherwiseinsurethat the money will be used for the purposesintended. They do not 174 Non. AllaIlsuverI3,Pe@ 18 (v-12541 constituteadditionalsubjectsof gepesallegislation inviolationofSection35 ofArticle III offheTexas constitutiorL. Riders attemptingto fix salariesend fees or transferfunds contraryto generalstatutesareuncon- stitutlcmal,because agenmalappropriationbill can- not amend,modify,or repeal a generallaw. Arider~prcdding for the sale of State property is notrelatedor incidentaltothe appropriationof funaz. It la generallegislationon a subjectother thanappropriationsandtherefore camotbe constitu- tionallyenactedin a generalappropriation bill. Sec. 35, Art. III, Con&. of Texas;Att'y Gen. Op. r253 ( 1951) - The riders inthe,generalappropristionbillwhich seekto conferupona joiutbOBldcomposedofnmnbers of the Legielature(Lsgielative Budget Board)author- ityto repuircfurtherltemisationof appropx%atedfwi ora~~oft~e*pendituret~reofviolatt Section 1 of Article II of the Constitutionof Texas, which pro hibitst&e exerciseby the legielatlvebranch of~powers properlyattacbedtothe executivebrmch. AttorneyGeneral E. Wayne Mode Assistante