Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

- -
9‘HF: ,~-lTORNEY
OF TEXAS
Gerald C. Mann
Mr. C. H. Cavness Opinion No. o-4814
State Auditor
Austin, Texas Re: Fees collected under Vernon’s
Revised Civil Statutes, Arti-
Dear Mr. Cavness: cle 3920.
We have your letter submitting the following ques-
tions for consideration by this Department:
1. Should fees collected under Article 3920, as
amended, be deposited in the State’s General Revenue Fund?
2. Are the appropriation bills, and specifically
Senate Bills Nos. 404 and 427 of the 46th Legislature, and
S. B. No. 423 of the 47th Legislature, purporting to author-
ize fees collected under Article 3920 to be used to defray
expenses of the Examining Division or Agents License Division
of the Board of Insurance Commissioners unconstitutional, as
attempting the amendment of Article 4690 without specifying
the purpose in the caption of the bill, and without re-enact-
ing and publishing at length the section or sections amended,
in violation of the Constitution, Article III, Sections 35
and 361
30 Whether unconstitutional or not, is there any
authority to be found in the appropriation bills above men-
tioned to use fees collected under Article 3920 for expenses
of the Motor Vehicle Insurance,Division by transferring same
to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Division Fund?
4. Is there any legislative authority for the es-
tablishment of a Life Insurance Department Fee Fund, as a
special fund for the State of Texas?
Your first and fourth questions will be considered
together.
The portion of amended Article 3920, with which we
are here concerned, is as follows:
“After August 31, 1939, all fees collected
by virtue of this Article shall be deposited in
the State treasury and appropriated to the use
and benefit of the Board of Insurance Commission-
ers to be used in the payment of salaries and
- -
Mr. C. H. Cavness, page 2 (O-4814)
other expenses arising out of and in connection
with the examination of insurance companies and/
or the licensing of insurance companies and in-
vestigations of violations of the insurance laws
of this State in such manner as provided in the
General Appropriation Bill for the Life Insurance
Division and Examining Division and Agents License
Division of the Board of Insurance Commissioners.~l
No special formal language is required to make an
appropriation of funds from the treasur of the State. (Pickle
V. Findlay, 44 S.W. 480; 38 Tex.Jur. 846.
Upon the same principle, no special formal words are
required to evidence the legislative intent to establish a
special fund within the treasury. A special fund is author-
ized and required to be established within the treasury when-
ever the legislative intent is expressed that funds from cer-
tain sources are to be held subject to appropriation for cer-
tain prescribed purposes. In such case, by clear implication,
a special fund is authorized and required, for the specifica-
tion of the pursoses for which the bonds are to be held sub-
ject to appropriation excludes the idea that they are to be
subject to appropriation for general State purposes so as to
become a part of the “General Fund.”
The intent of the Legislature in the portion of
Article 3920 above quoted clearly appears to be that after
August 31, 1939, fees collected pursuant to the provisions
of Article 3920 shall be deposited in the State treasury, there
to be held subject to appropriation by the Legislature for the
purposes specifically mentioned in that Article. That no men-
tion of a “Special Fund” is made is without controlling signi-
ficance. Since all special funds are within the “State treas-
ury”, the direction to deposit the fee in the “State treasury”
is likewise not controlling. The order is to hold these funds
in the State treasury subject to appropriation for certain
purposes; this mandate requires and authorizes the establish-
ment of a special fund.
Furthermore, the fact that the Legislature has not
assigned a tag or name to this special fund is of no importance.
The accounting officers of the State may identify the special
fund by any means or symbol they wish, so long as they obey the
legislative mandate to hold the funds thereto deposited subject
to the appropriation by the Legislature only for the purposes
specified in titicle 3920.
In reply to your second question, you are advised
that S. B. 404, Acts of the 46th Legislature, which amended
MI-. C. ‘F?. Cavness, page 3 (0-4814)
Articic 3920, is a general law and an independent enactment
b:y the Legislature. It is not unconstitutional because its
caption does not express the purpose to amend Article 4690,
nor is it invalid because it fails to re-enact and publish
at length sections of Article 4690--even though the effect of
S.U. 404 may be to amend Article 4690 by implication. (Whether
any amendment of ilrticle 4650 by implication occurs, we do not
here tiecide.) S.a. 404 is valid as an amendment to iZrticle
3920. Article III, Section 3o, of the Constitution, does not
prohibit “the passage of a law which declares fully its provi-
sions without direct reference to any other act, although its
effect should be to enlarge or restrict the operation of some
other statutes”. (Clark v. Finley, 93 Tex. 177, 54 S.W. 343).
Article III, section 3j, of the Constitution, is
not violated, s~cause the pur;iose expressed in the caption
of S. ij. 464 to amend iirticle 3920 is sufficient to author-
ize any provision in the amending act germane to the subject
treated in the original titicle 3920. lhe situation is not the
same as ~‘~3s before this. Department in Opinion No. O-81, for
there the contention was that a provision in the departmental
appropriation bill should ‘be construed to amend a general law;
:*~hereas, here the provisions of the depa,rtmental appropriation
bill to which you refer (Acts 46th Legislature, ti.3. 427; Acts
47th Legislature, S.B. 423) do not amend but are enacted in
pursuance of the provisions of S.3. 404, 46th Legislature, a
general late.
It is well established in this State that provisions
of the general law may not be changed or amended by provisions
inserted in the departmental appropriation bills.
In reply to your third q,uestion, the amendment of
drticle 39X, by S. 3. 404, does not authorize the appropria-
tion OX’the fees therein mentioned to pay the expenses of the
Motor Vehicle Insurance Di~wision. Rather, the Article author-
izes appropriction of the fees only “as provided in the General
Appropriation Bill for the Life Insurance Division and Examin-
ing Division and Agents License Division of the Board of Insur-
ance Commissioners``. see Opinion No. o-1360. We find no pro-
vision of the appropriation bills you mention which attempts to
divert the fees collected under Rrticle 3920 as amended from
the :,urposes for which they are authorized by that Article to be
appropriated, to a purpose not authorized, i.e., the payment of
expenses of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Division.
APPRCVLi)Nioil’i’, 1942 Very truly yours
/s/ Ger;~Jd C. Mann KTTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
)qfJyJm$” G&&A?& 027 m~?&-``s By /s/ R. W. Fairchild
APPROVr:D: OPINION CCMMITTES R. W. Fairchild, Assistant
BY: EWB, CHAIRMAN
RWF-MRtwb