OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable M. a. nor&an, cha1rzlm
Approprlat ions Coomtttee
aouae of Reprerrentatlves
AIM tin, Texas
You have eubmitt oaslderatfm tlouse
ii111 30. 157 by C opriatioa of $1,057.7L3
to pay par diem a curred by the alar
neenbers 02 the la attending board
meeting8 held 1 of July and hu&ust,
tar that the regular
approprlatiow
ion U88 obtained by the board
ur requeat that some doubt exists
e, or some of the members thareof,
ure can legally u&e this approprlatio!b
h&her there is any conrtltutlooal provl-
approprlatloa.
reads aa follows:
“The members of the State Board Of Educa-
tloa, created by this Act, aball be paid ‘Pea Ml-
lars per day vheo In actual attaadaace upon Board
IiOuOrable M. 8. Morgan, page 2
tbeetlngs, aud shall be eatitled to actual trav-
eling aud other necessary expenaee incurred f.u
the discharge of their duties. Each member shall
take ,the coastltutlonal oath of office.*
Article III, seotloo 44, of t&e Coustitutloa of Texas,
provides, la partr
*The Leglalature . . . shall not . . . graot
b ylpproplatioua or otherwise, any ausouut of
moaeJ out of the Treaaurp of the Ytate to cay
lndlvldual, on a clelm, real or pretended, vheu
the aame &all not have baea prorlded for by pre-
existing law. . . .*
The Suprerae Cwwt OS TeXad, la Fort Worth Cavalry
Club v. Sheppard, 83 S. Y. (24) 660, said;
‘It,is asttled aa the lav of this 3tate that
uuder the piovlslons of section 44 of article 3
of our State Couatltutlon, the Legislature la
prohibited from epproprlatlq state aoaey to my
~lrrdlvldual~ on any claim, unlees, at the very
time the approprlatlon 1s made, there la already
in Porte scam pre-exlatlng valid law couatitut-
lug the claim the appropriatlou 1s rrmde to pay a
legal and valid obligation against the atate.
Pinally, It 1s settled that br legal ob-
i$a;loo ts meant such an obligation as vould
form the bash of a Judgment against the lrtate
iu a court of competent jurisdiction, lo the event
the Leglrlature should permit it to be sued.”
Auatlo Hat ional Bank v. Sheppard (Tea. Coa. App.
oplaioa adopts@ by Suprsme court), l23 Tex. 272,
71 5. U. (2d) 242; Austlu gatlonsl Bank v. Sbep-
Corn. App. opimion adopted b Supreme
123 Tex. 2b0, 71 3. Y. (2d) 24 iI 1 CorSiC8M
Cottou’bkills Y. 3heppard (Tex. Cola, App, 0,pialon
ado ted by Supreae Court), 123 Tex. 352, 71 3. Ii.
(2dp 247; llchols v . Ytate 11 Tex. Civ; Ppp. 327,
32 Y. Y. 452 (urlt refusedjj State v. Alderman
(Tex. clv. ~pp.) 163 9. Y. 1020 (vrlt refused);
Sate Y. Wlleon, 71 Tex. 291, 9 3. Y. 155.
. ’
. _
BoQorable n. B. Morgan, page 3
Ia view of the f oregolag authmltles, tt is our
oplalon that Article 2675b-10 la a pre-existing law wlthln
the meaning of Article III, Sectioo 44, of the Constitution,
and that fiouse Bill No. 157 does not contravene said sectloa.
We have also considered said Bill in c.anectl.on
vlth Article III, Section $9, of the Coostltutlon, vhlch ln-
hlblts the creatSoa of a debt, except for certain stated pur-
poses, and it 18 our oplnloa that the expeadltures herein ln-
rolved did not create a “debt” agafnst the State of Texas
ulthln the meanlog of that term as used la the Constitution.
You are further advised that we irnov of uo constl-
tutloaal provlsloo uhlch would pevent the Legislature from
lawfully making the contenplated approprlatlon provided for
ia aouse Bill Ho. 157. The fact. that uo deficiency authorlza-
tlon was obtained from the Goveruor as provided for la Arti-
cle 4351, Veroon’s Annotated Civil jtatutes, Is lmmterlal,
alms Article 2675b-10 a~uthorlted the members of ths Board to
incur the expeasea aad obligates the State to pay the sam as
well a8 their per diem.
Ye are eaclosl.ng herewith aouse Bill Ho. 157 and
Judge k‘atklns’ letter.
‘Prustfng that ve have satisfactorily ansrered your
inquiry, ve are
Yours very truly
ATT~FWEIGENEBALOF TE;XPS
.
.~./
.- BY
.I
_...d
. C. Davis, Jr.
Assisiant
JCD:db
Enclo8ures