Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1957 )


Menu:
  • Mr. Raymond W. Vowell,
    Acting Executive Director,
    Board for Texas State Hospitals
    and Special Schools,
    Austin, Texas                  Opinion NO. WW-265.
    Re:   Validity of Sections '7a
    and 7b of Article II,
    H.B. 133, Acts 55th
    Legislature, 1957, Ch.
    335, p. 926 (General
    Dear Mr. Vowell:                    Appropria$i90nAct, 1957).
    You have presented for our consideration ~thequestion
    of the validity of Sections 7a and 7b of Article II, H.B. 133,
    Acts 55th Legislature, 1957, Ch. 385, p. 926. We previously
    held in Opinion w-96 that Section 7 of Article II of the Bill
    as originally introduced in the Senate and House of Representa-
    tives was invalid as containing within the General Appropria-
    tion Bill provisions which are the subject of general legisla-
    tion.
    The Bill originally introduced was amended to such
    an extent that we do not think Opinion WW-96 controls the deci-
    sjon -inthis opinion. Although dealing with the same general
    su.bJectmatter, the Appropriation Act as finally passed differs
    markedly from the Bill as originally introduced.
    In Opinion WW-96 th1.soffice held that the General
    Appropriation Bill may direct approprliationof money Andymay
    detail, limit or restri.ctthe use of funds so appropriated
    where such provisions are necessarily ,;Annectedwith and inci-
    dental to the appropriation and use of';he funds. Conley v.
    Daughters of the Republic of 'Texas,106 Te.x.80, 
    150 S.W. 19
    :
    ,I~913
    ).
    Such provisions concerning accounting prociedures
    and directions as to the method of expenditure ancireimburse-
    ment of certain funds are permissible and proper so long as
    they do not conflict with the general law on t.hesubject.
    Attorney General's Opinion V-1254. However, general legisla-
    tion constitutes a separate subject and cannot be ineluded
    within a General Appropriation B111, and a rider to a general
    Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, Page 2 (WW-265).
    appropriation bill cannot repeal, modify or amend an existing
    eneral law. Moore v. Sheppard, 
    144 Tex. 537
    , 
    192 S.W.2d 559
    7 1946); Linden v. Finley 
    92 Tex. 451
    , 
    49 S.W. 578
    (1899);
    State v. Steele, 5'1Tex.'203 (1882); Attorney General's Opinion
    0. V-1254.
    Section 7 concerns the admission and transportation
    of non-residents and aliens. Subsection (a) of Section 7
    provides as follows:
    "None of the moneys appropriated
    by this Article may be expended for the
    training or medical treatment of any
    student or patient who is not a citizen
    or resident of this State. For the
    purpose of this provision, affidavits
    from two reputable persons shall be
    deemed adequate evidence of citizenship
    or residency."
    If this provision amounts to an enactment of the Legis-
    lature which is properly the subject of general law, it will be
    invalid under the above cited cases. It is apparent that by
    this provision the Legislature has evidenced its intent that no
    money be expended for a certain purpose i.e., the training or
    medical treatment of non-residents.
    In Linden v. 
    Finley, supra
    , the Legislature provided
    that district attornevs on a fee basis should be oaid only one
    fee where the defendant was convicted on several cases and
    received concurrent sentences.  The general law provided for
    fees for every case in which a conviction was had by the Di5-
    trict Attorney regardless of the nature of the sentence.  The
    Court held the provisions of the Appropriation Bill valid,even
    in the face of the general fee law, and in so holding, stated:
    II
    . . . But the provision under
    consideration does not purpcrt to change
    the laws existing at that time which pro-
    vide what fees the officers therein named
    shall receive from the state. It simply
    acts upon the appropriation for the two
    years beginning March 1, 1897, and limits
    the payment of fees in felony cases to
    convictions ,inwhich the term of the
    sentence is not made to run concurrently
    with the term of a previous sentence.
    There is nothing in the constitution
    which prohibits the legislature from
    -   .
    _   . i
    Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, Page 3 (``-265)~
    limiting any appropriation by any apt
    words expressive of their intent.
    Should they even fail to appropriate a
    salary fixed by the constitution, the
    officer affected by It is without remedy
    before the courts. However clear and
    however just the demand against the state,
    without an appropriation the comptroller
    is not authorized to draw his warrant for
    its payment; and, when the legislature
    says that a certain class o,fclaims shall
    not be paid from an appropriation, they
    are excepted from t,heappropriation, and
    cannot lawfully be paid from the treasury.
    . . 0 Under our constitutfon, without an
    appropriation no money can be drawn from
    the treasury. ~ . .'
    It is our opinion that Section ?(a),above quoted,
    denies any appropriation for the performance of a statutory
    duty imposed by general law, but it does not at,temptto change
    that general law. Accordingly, ,underthe Linden case, we hold
    Section 7 (a) to be valid.
    Subsection (b) and its constituent parts, (l), (2)
    and (3), provide as follows:
    "The ccst,of deporting any non-resident
    or alien may be paid by any of the institu-
    tions named in this Article from appropriated
    funds available to such institutions. It is
    further provided that expenditures from appro-
    priation items designated ?General Operating
    Expenses' and 'other operating expenses' in
    this Article, for the purposes of deporting
    non-residents or aliens or of returning Texas
    patients or students fr~:;'r~:
    other st,ates,shall
    be governed by the following additional rules
    and procedures:
    "(1) In order to conserve the use of
    personnel and reduce t,hecosts of deporting
    patients, the superintendent of a hospital
    or institution named in Article II which is
    deporting patients may alsc include in his
    scheduled deportation trip patients approved
    for deportation from other State hospitals
    and institutions and be reimbursed by such
    other hospitals and institutions for their
    Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, Page 4 (``-265).
    pro rata shares of the costs incurred.
    All such reimbursements are hereby appro-
    priated to such hospital or Institution
    for 'ffeneralOperating Expenses' or 'other
    operating expenses'.
    "(2) To simplify the disbursement
    of funds for deportation purposes, the
    Hospital Board and hospitals or institutions
    under its jurisdiction may request commercial
    transportation companies to furnish the re-
    quired transportation of patients and of
    attendants designated to accompany such
    patients. The cost of such transportation
    services are to be paid upon submission of
    purchase voucher to the Hospital Board or
    to the hospital or institution under its
    jurisdiction requesting such transportation
    services.
    “(3) The mental health agency of any
    other State or any institution operated there-
    under which is deporting patients to Texas
    State hospitals, may be paid a pro rata share
    of any expenses incurred when patients from
    Texas State Hospitals are taken back to their
    state of residency by personnel of the afore-
    mentioned agency upon thei,rreturn trip."
    Subsection (b) as a whole concerns the accounting,
    allocation, and reimbursement involved in transporting patients
    from Texas to the states of their residence. Subsection (b)
    (1) allows a messenger from one State hospital to transfer
    patients from other State hospitals along with patients from
    his own hospital where possible, the expenses of such trip to
    be allocated on a pro rata basis to the hospitals or schools
    whose patients were transported. As such, it is an accounting
    provision and is a proper subject,for the General Appropration
    Bill.
    Subparagraph (b) (2) authorizes the purchase of public
    commercial transpor,tation,the cost of such transportation to
    be paid upon purchase vouchers to the Hospital Board. It is our
    opinion that this provision deals also with the accounting of
    funds expended for public transportation. It is a valid subject
    ,tobe included in the Appropriation Bill.
    .   .   .   .I
    Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, Page 5 (``-265).
    ^     _,.
    Subparagraph (b) (3) concerns the payment of a pro
    rata share of the expenses of a messenger from another state,
    who, after having brought patients from another state to ~xexas,
    takes patients back to that state on his return trip. This
    provision again deals with the means of expenditure of the funds
    so appropriated and constitutes a valid subject for an appropri-
    ation bill.
    Therefore, we conclude that Subsection (a) of Section
    7 of Article II, House Bill 133, Acts 55th Legislature, 1957,
    Ch. 385. p. 926 (General Appropriation Act, 1957) is valid,
    since the provision amounts to restricting the appropriation for
    a certain purpose, which action is within the prerogative of the
    Legislature. We further hold that Subsection (b) of Section 7
    contains provisions and requirements, the subject matter of which
    is necessarily connected with and incidental to the appropriation
    made by the bill. We do not find any conflict between these pro-
    visions and the general legislation on the subject of non-resi-
    dent inmates, patients or students. Therefore, we hold Section
    7 to be valid in its entirety.
    SUMMARY
    Subsection (a) of Section 7, Article II
    H.B. 133, Acts 55th Legislature, 1957, Ch. 365,
    p. 926, is valid. Subsection (b) of Section 7,
    Article II, H.B. 133, Acts 55th Legislature,
    1957, Ch. 385, p. 926, is valid.
    Very truly yours,
    WILL WILSON
    JHM:wam:pf
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman
    .T*C. Davis, Jr.
    John Reeves
    C. K. Richards
    W. V. Geppert
    APPROVED FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL
    By: James N. Ludlum.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-265

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1957

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017