Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Man, gay Isk$Gpatr’Pck*
cli(rirman
Committee on Qtntin
House of
51st Legiala~twe
Au&a, TCNLPS Qpi&on 1Jo. v-772,
. -
Hon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 2 (V-772)
and telegraph expenses, and shaU pay kis other con-
tingent expense& The Committee on Contingent Ex-
penses of the House shall provide rules and regula-
tions for carrying out the purposes of this Resolu-
tion. Supply items drawn by the members from the
House shallbe cbargedtefhe member and paid for
by him out of the allowance herein provided.”
In Opinion No, V-84 this office considered the validity
of a bill submitted by Hon. Claud GiIrner, Chairman. Committee on
Appropriations of the House of the 50th Legislature, Sec. 1 of which
we quote:
*There is hereby appropriated out of sny funds
in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the
sum of Three Hundred Theueand Dollars($300.000.00)
or samuchihareof as maybesiecasspry, to payinci-
dental expenses ,0f the mew&crs of the Regular Session
of the 50th Legislature, such expenses lint to exceed
Ten Dollars ($10.00) per day per member.”
The opinienheld that tke bill was invaIid for the want
of a preeriating law therefor ~.und.er.Article III, Sectlen 44 0f the Con-
stitution. The opinion further keld tkat the bill was invalid as a pra-
tuity to the individual members as the claims were for personal busi-
ness 6f the respective members.
Many ca6es frem other states are set out in Opinion
No. O-3778 holding that the Texas Legislature could not constitu-
tionally vote its members $50 a month for stenographic and other
expense between sessions. Kansas, Oregon. and Washington cases
have invalidated appropriations of $5 per day to each member for
expenses. Griffith v. Turner, 233 P. 510: State v. Clausen, 253
P. 805; Jones v. Hess. 285 P. 205. Similarly the Arkansas Su-
preme Court invalidated an appropriation of $,108 per member for
expenses while attending an extraordinary session. Ashtan v. Fer-
gusoa. 261 S.W. 624.
The latest case is that of Scroggie v. Bates, 48 S.E.Zd
634 (July 1948) by the Supreme Court of Sleuth Carolina. There the
Legislature voted each member $780 “as official expenses in con-
nection with the 1947 session. . . and work between sessions . . .”
The court held that:
Hon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 3 (V-772)
.
“ln providing that each member 0 , . shall be
paid the same amount, that it be paid %s official
expenses in connection with the 1947 session’ and
‘work between sessions,’ and finally in providing
that the amount appropriated may be paid without
the required itemization’ . , . whan considered to-
gether, make the conclusion inevitable without the
aid of extrinsic facts and circumstances that the
real intent and purpose of the appropriation . . .
was to increase the compensation and per diem of
the members , , , in violation bf the Constitution
of this State, and the statute is therefore void.”
In a letter opinion of March 12, 1947, addressed to Hon.
J. F. Ward, Chairman, Contingent Expense Committee, House of
Representatives, Austin, in answering a similar question it was said:
“The Contingent Expense Fund allotment is, of course, made for the
purpose of meeting those comparatively small items of expense in
connection with the sitting of the Legislature which are not foresee-
atie in kind or quantity, and properly so, in recognition of the funda-
mental policy that the Legislature must carry on in the discharge of
its duties. In the nature of things, the allotment may not be resorted
to except for those items of expenses that have a legitimate and real
relevancy to the official service being performed. In other words,
it means that the compensation or payment whatsoever must be for
something for a public purpose rather than for the personal interest
of the person paid whether he be an employee or Representative.”
The language quoted indicated the real purpose of a con-
tingent expense approprizition. This office adheres to the holdings
above cited, and the principles therein involved, It is well known
that $10.00 per day is not adequate compensation for members of the
Legislature, and the per diem should be increased. But to be valid
it must be done by constitutional amendment rather than by a statu-
tory expense allowance,
SUMMARY
The Legislature may not constitutionally in-
crease its per diem by directing the payment to
Hon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 4 (V-772)
each of its members the lump sum of $lO,OO per day
for expenses during its regular session.
Your6 very truly,
ATTORNEYQZNERALOF TEXAS
w G&
Ocie Spew
AssistaM
0S:wb:erc
APPROVED:
iiiL&&&