September 6, 1950
Hon. J. E. McDonald Opinion No. V-1102
Commissioner of Ag,riculture
Austin, T e x a s Re: Legality of defraying
travel expenses for Seed
Laboratory work from
funds appropriated by
Senate Bill 34, Acts 5Ist
Leg., 1st C.S. 1950.
Dear Sir:
Your request for an opinion relates to Senate Bill 34,
Acts 51st Leg., 1st C.S. 1950, ch. 31, p. 95, which contains an
appropriation of $6,000 as an addition to the sums appropriated
to the State Department of Agriculture by House Bill 322, Acts
51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p. 1208. Specifically you ask wheth-
er the traveling expenses of an employee of the State Department
of Agriculture can be paid from the $6,000 appropriation made
by S.B. 34.
We are verbally informed by the Chief Clerk of the De-
partment of Agriculture that the employee in question is a field
seed inspector hired under Item 28 of the General Appropriation
Bill (H.B. 322, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p. 1208).
The Department of Agriculture section of General Ap-
propriation Bill contains the following appropriations:
For the years ending
August 31, 1950 August 31, 1951
“Out of Seed Laboratory Fees
(Chapter 551, Section 10, H.B.
420, Regular Session of the
47th Legislature)
“28. Inspectors, office assistants,
assistant seed analysts, none to
exceed $2,640 per year . . . 21,120.oo 21,120.oo
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 2 (V-1102)
”
. . .
“30. Postage, printing, repairs,
equipment, supplies, traveling
expense,salaries, and con-
tingent . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,ooo.oo 9,000.00”
Senate Bill 34 was subsequently enacted on March 17,
1950. The caption to such bill declares it to be “An Act mak-
ing an additional appropriation to the State Department of Agri-
culture for the biennium ending August 31, 1951, from the Special
Pure Feed Fund and out of Seed Laboratory Fees.”
The Act specifically provides:
“Section 1. There is hereby appropriated to
the State Department of Agriculture for the bien-
nium ending August 31, 1951, in addition to the
sums appropriated by House Bill No. 322, Acts
51st Legislature, Regular Session, 1949, to be
expended for the purposes set out herein, the
sums herein specified or so much thereof as
may be necessary.
” . . .
“OUT OF SEED LABORATORY FEES: To /
pay inspectors, office assistants, assistant seed
analysts, Seed Laboratory Division, none to ex-
ceed Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty ($2,640.00)
Dollars per year, the sum of Three Thousand
($3.000.00) Dollars; and to pay postage, printing,
repairs, equipment, supplies, traveling expenses,
salaries, and contingent, the sum of Six Thousand
(46,OOO.OO) Dollars.
“Sec. 2. The fact that the State Department of
Agriculture urgently needs the funds appropriated
herein to more effectively conduct its work on be-
half of the farmers of this State creates an emergency
and an imperative public necessity that the Constitu-
tional Rule requiring that bills be read on three sev-
eral days in each House be suspended; and said Rule
is hereby suspended, and this Act shall take effect
and be in force from and after its passage, and it is
so enacted.”
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 3 (V-1102)
The problem is one of statutory construction. Your de-
partment is of the opinion that the $6,000 granted in Senate Bill
34 is a supplemental appropriation to Item 30. Your request
states the Comptroller of Publics Accounts is of the opinion that
such $6,000 can only pay expenses incurred by personnel whose
salaries are paid from the Senate Bill 34 appropriation. This
difference of interpretation indicates an ambiguity in that the
language in Senate Bill 34 does not specifically declare whether
or not this 46,000 was a~ supplemental grant to Item 30. Where
a statute is susrzeptible of more than one construction, resort
may be had to the canons of construction if it becomes necessary
to construe or interpret the legislative intent of such ambiguous
statute. 39 TexJur. 160, Statutes, Sec. 88.
It is stated in Volume 39 of Texas Jurisprudence at page
166 that “the intention of the Legislature in enacting a law is.
the law itself.” Therefore, the intent of the Legislature must
be ascertained; that is, just what the Legislature intended Senate
Bill 34 to accomplish and how it intended that the Department of
Agriculture use this 4 6,000 appropriation. If there is uncertainty
as to how Senate Bill 34 should be construed, all the circumstances
surrounding the passage of the bill must be considered. The rule
is stated in Corpus Juris (Vol. 59, p. 958):
“While the intent of the Legislature is to be
found primarily in language of the statute,where such
language is vague, ambiguous, or uncertain, the
court may look, not only to language but to the sub-
ject matter of the act, the object to be accomplished,
or the purpose to be subserved; it may also look in
this connection to the expediency of the act, or its
occasion and necessity, the remedy provided, the
condition of the country to be affected by the act, the
consequences following upon its enactment, or various
extrinsic matters which throw some light on the legis-
lative intent. Logic and sound economic principles
may serve as a guide to the legislative intent.”
Also, in connection with determining the legislative intent
of Senate Bill 34, it is important to note that such bill and the
General Appropriation Bill are in relation to the same subject mat-
ter and are, therefore, governed by the in nari materia rule of con-
struction, This rule, as stated in Corpus Juris (Vol. 59, p. 1042),
requires that “in the construction of a particular statute, or in the
interpretation of its provisions, all statutes relating to the same
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 4 (V-1102)
subject, or having the same general purpose, should~be read
in connection with it, as.together constituting one law, although
they were enacted at different times.” TexasJurisprudence
(Vol. 39, p. 253) states that the rule is applied so that any con-
flict between the provisions of the statutes will be harmonized
and effect will be given to all provisions of each act if they can
be made to stand together and have concurrent efficacy and
declares that such rule “proceeds upon the supposition that
several statutes relating to one subject are governed by one
spirit and policy, and are intended to be consistent and har-
monious in their several parts and provisions.’
In the General Appropriation Bill the Legislature ap-
propriated 49,000 per year for each of two years, one ending
August 31, 1950, the second ending August 31, 1951, such fund to
be used by the persons employed under Item 28 to pay for “pos-
tage, printing, repairs, equipment, supplies, traveling expense,
salaries, and contingent.” When the events and reasons causing
the passage of Senate Bill 34 are investigated and determined,
and when the in nari materia rule of construction is applied, it
would appear that the Legislature intended that this 46,000 ap-
propriation was to be a supplemental appropriation to Item No.
30 in the Department of Agriculture section of the General Ap-
propriation Bill and that such $6,000 was to be used by those
persons employed under Item 28 for traveling expenses, postage,
printing, etc. It is apparent from the emergency clause of Senate
Bill 34 that the Legislature recognized “that the State Department
of Agriculture urgently needs the funds appropriated herein to
more effectively conduct its work on behalf of the farmers of this
State.”
An examination of the file accompanying your request
reflects that in January of this year you requested the Legisla-
ture to grant a supplemental appropriation to the Seed Laboratory
Division. Such request stated:
”
. . . additional funds are needed in the following
particular line appropriations of the current appropria-
tion bill.
B LABORATORY DIVISION
Item No. 28: 4 3,ooo.oo
Item No. 30: 6,408.62 n
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 5 (v-1102)
You have indicated ~that the~comptroller is of the opin-
ion that a transfer of this $6,000 granted in Senate Bill 34 to
Item No. 30 would violate Section 2(15)b of the General Appro-
priation Bill, whioh provides:
“The appropriations ,herein provided are to be
construed as the maximum sums to be appropriated
to and for the several purposes named herein,’ and :
the amounts are intended to cover; and’shall cover
the entire cost of the respective items and the same
shall not be supplemented from any othe~r sources;
I
. . .
As noted above, the most reasonable construction of
Senate Bill 34 is that the 46,000 appropriated therein was to
supplement Item No. 30; that is, the Legislature, in called ses-
sion, decided that the prior appropriation in Item 30 ~was inade-
quate and allotted $6,000 to this fund. The ,Legislature has the
sole constitutional power to “provide by law for the compensation
of all officers, servants, agents and,public contractors, not pro-
vided for in this Constitution.” Tex. Const. Art. III, Sec. 44.~ The
Legislature in its Regular Session in 1949 appropriated $9,000
per year to Item 30 and stated in Section 2(15)b, of the General
Appropriation Bill that “the same shall not be supplemented from
any other sources.* In the First Called Session in 1950, the Legis-
lature enacted Senate Bill 34 to supplement Item 30 with a 4 6,000
appropriation. This body is the sole constitutionally empowered
authority to do such and it could by any subsequent statute either
increase or entirely abolish the prior appropriation. If this were
not true, the Legislature would be without power to effectively deal
with an emergency situation wherein the fund granted in the General
Appropriation Bill was determined to be inadequate and additional
funds were urgently needed to allow State employees to efficiently
perform their duties. Therefore, it would be a most unreasonable
construction of Section 2(15)b of the General Appropriation Bill to
hold that such section prohibited the Comptroller of Public Accounts
from transferring the $6,000 appropriated in Senate Bill 34 to Item
30 once it has been determined that the Legislature intended to so
supplement such Item 30 when it enacted Senate Bill 34.
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 6 (V-1102)
SUMMARY
Senate Bill 34, Acts 51st Leg., 1st C.S. 1950, ch.
31, p. 95, contains a 46,000 supplemental appropria-
tion to be added to Item 30 of the State Department of
Agriculture section of the General Appropriation Bill
(Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p, 1208). Travel-
ing expenses of a field seed inspector hired under Item
28 of the Department of Agriculture section of the
General Appropriation Bill may be paid from such
4 6,000 supplemental appropriation.
Very truly yours,
APPROVED: PRICE DANIEL
Attorney General.
Willis E. Gresham
Antitrust Division
Everett Hutchinson Walton S. Roberts
Executive Assistant Assistant
Charles D. Mathews
First Assistant
WSR:”