- .
OFFICE OF ME AITORNEY GENERAL OF TQcA$
y euuaQ.ylln
-- AUSTIN
Konorabk b'alterC. Kooblard, Chairmn
mira of fnouranoe Oomlssi~nors
Austin, Texas
. Dear sir:
.
.
.
c
contenplated action by t*hB Ids-
the exnninaticn conducted In Texas end the ragulra-
msnt md~ tf the Prnotoricnn bnsod on the omminatioz:).,
Detsilo in connection with the cxoidnstion and tho
roquircsants vii11nacoesarilg be diucueoed in the
hearin::end more intolli{;entlyexplained by reproscnte-
tlve of this Depertmnt.V'
.
.
Ronorabls i&&r C. Woodward, Page 2 7
l
Eith reference to whether or not the proposed trip
of l&r. Barrow constitutes State buSines6 you state:
-The action tG be taken by ;lissourior any other
..state naturally affects the existonce of the Order
and may result in dama&ine it to such an extcnt'that
it cannot operate in Texao. It,is important from the
standpoint of the State of Texas that the action taken
by us be ruuy explainsa and Understood. It is our
..view that this aotion really plaoes the Order on a
nuoh sounder basis than it waS prior to'the exemination;~
that its ability to meet its contractual obligaticns is
. increased. It appeara to us to be to the intereet Gf
the State of Texa~a to explain to the officials of
another state this action we have taken to improve the
Order's condition but'whichthe other steto evidently
dGaS AOt Understand and UpGn Which it proposes t0 can-
cal the Prnetorians' license.*
.
I%'16 our opinion that tiieinterest of the State of
Texas iA the aOtiGA Of the ZfiSSGUri InSUMnOS iBpSrtm& re-
lating to tho Praet.ori.&nS as net out in the preceding para-
graph qUGtdi from your letter in not 80 direct es to constitute
State bupiness v?ithinthe meaning Gf the follov:ingprovision
Oontained in the rider to the departments1 aPprO?riatiOn bill,
being senate 9111 427, hctc. 46th LC&lStjrO:
Wo traveling expenses shall bk incurred by any
onployoe of any of the depurtmenta, or other s@?nciea
of the govorDment, outSide of the boundaries of the
Stat0 Of Texas, exoept for Stat0 ~UCiI?3Sa dirOCt.~y
ccncarning hio ovm department Gr agency aAd no suoh
expenses 6hnll be paid froclState appropriationsor
out Gf any looal or auxilliary funds by tho State
Oomptrollcr to any employee of any agency of the ~ov-
ernment, until and unless a 'wjrittcn statement, oi2ned
by tho Attorney <;enoral,advisird that the purpose
of.the proposed trip, in his opinion, is for said
State businesc purposes, , .. .*I
While it is true that the action of the lliesouriIn-
6urance Cepsrtment moy ~indirectly nffcot the status and rel-
;aAr;,;zsthePvastorians, a fraternal benefit society cherteyod
170 do AGt bolieVo that this interest is any &rester
than is &we iu tho caSe of ony action by a fqroign stnte
against a Texas corporation Or association.
,
.
i i. .
.-
Honorable Xalter C. Y;oodrard,Psga 3 -
.
Nor do we regard it a6 m6terial.tbat the expfJnSe6
of the proposed trip by L!r.Barrow may eventually be mid by
the Fraetorians by way of acsessnent against thst comp+~ny.
The money for the payment of Xr. Barrox treveling exg8nses
would of necessity be nsde out of an appropriation to the In-
suranoe Department of this State, end the fact that sC3.dap-
propriation might thereatter be supplemented to the extent of
such eqahsea by an assessment agasinstthe Fraetorians does
not deprive the monies paid out by the Comptroller a?ldTreaeur-
or oi'their character as State funao.
Acqordingly, we are ootlpelledto reaffirm our letter
to you of October 9th wherein we otated thnt in our opinion
the proposed trip of Mr. Eiarrow did not constitute Sto.tebus-
incss a5 defined in the departmental apptiopriationbill.
Yours very truly
A’PTOMEY G3E&, OP TEXAS
YiRQ?BB
.
.
.
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion