Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

August 25, 1951
Hon. Allan Shivers OpinionNo. V-l.254
Governorof Texas
Austin,Texas Re: Validityof "riders"in H.B.
426, Acts 52nd Legislature,
1951; the generalappropria-
tion bill for the biennium
Dear GovernorShivers: ending August 31, 1953.
In your original.requestfor an opinionyou asked
that we studythe legalityand ccmstltutionality of the riders
in House Bill 426, Acts 52nd Leg., KS., 1951, snd adviseyou
as to our concluslonsas early as possible. In subsequentcon-
ferencesyou Xndlcatedthat'ymsrs primarilyinters*ed in ss-
curingthe rulesoflawapplicabls ln&tendningthslegality
or constitutlomlltyof riders In an approprlatlon bill. You
s'kated~thatin vlew'ofthe h&ding In Fulmo& v. Lane, 104 Tex.
499, l&C SiW. 405 (19l.l)and Att&ney GenerBl'sOpinionNo.
V-1196 (1951)that the Governorhas no authorityto veto a non-
appropriating ri$er In an appropriationbill, you are particular-
lyconcernsdajmutthe growlngtendencyt~rd "governmen by
riders'and desirea general*ateme& of the rules of law ap-
plicableto rldsrsratherthan a specificruling on each sepa-
rate rider. With this in n&&we shallpresentthe general
rules.andrefer to specificriders only by'way of illusttition
as to howthg generalrules are applied.
Gsne++y speaking,the constitution@. provision
limitdngt&. scope of riders in gsneralappropriation bills
and the power of the Legislaturewith regardthereto is Sec-
tion 35 of.ArticleIII of the Te%as Constitution: In addition,
Section1 of ArticleII is sometimesapplicable.
The historyof Section35 of ArticleIII and discus-
slons,b$cont.emp+ry juristsgive an insightinto the evils
by its adoption. Sect&n
which ~rs intendedto be corrsctefl
35 p~oviaes:~
."Nobill, (exceptgeneralappropriation bills,
which may embracethe various subj&ts ad accounts,
for and on accountof which moneys are apprdprlated)
shall containmore thsn one subject,which shallbe
expressedin its title. But if any subjectshallbe
embracedin an act, which shall not be expressedin
158
Hon. Allan Shiv-eSS,
PW3e 2 (v-1254)
the title, such act shall be void only as to so much
thereof,as shsllnot be so expressed."
A similarprovisionoriginallyappearedin Section24
of ArticleVII of the *eras Constitutionof 1845 as follows:
"J?xerylawenectedbythe Legislatureshallem-
brace but one object,sndthat shallbe expressedin
the title."
Thiswasthe first time inTexas historythatanat-
tempt was made to controlthe title and inclusiveness of legis-
lation. The Constitutions of 1861, 1866, and 1869 carriedfor-
ward the wordingwithoutchange.
.Indiscussingthebe&groundoftheTexasprovision
cplef Justice0. M. 'Roberts,
a memberof the 1866 Convention
anda contempoFaryofthisperlod,said:
Yl!h%sprovl+xainthe Constitutionor~giaate~ in,
andwas adoptedtopreventthe repetitionofamost
flagwit cibue of legislativepower inthe State of
Georgiainthe la¢ury. Its historylsbriefiy
sketchedinenopinion&eliveredinthe Supremecourt
of that State,a6 follows,to wit: *As to the objec-
tionthat the act of l&is violative'ofthe17th sec.
lst art. of the Constituti&of Georgie,becausel~e
tit~"la at variancewith the body of the cd, I would
obeervethatthetraditionaryhietorJrofthisclause
ls,'thetit was insertedin the Constitutionof 1798,
atthe'iwta&e of'GeneralJauk?sJackson, andthat
its necessitywas suggestedby the Yaeoo act. 'That
meiwrablemeasureof tti~li'th of Jsne, 1795; as
ie&.lknown,wwe smugg&edthroughtheLegislature
under the captian.ofsn act, "for the kymsnt of &
let& State troopa,"and a declarationin its title of
the right of the State to the unappropriatedterritory
thereof,"for the protectionend supportof Its fron-
tier settlements." (Mayorsnd Aldermanof Savannah
v. The State of Georgia,4 Ga., 38.) This obnoxious
act was repealed'thenext year, and the large grant of
land to privateindividualsembracedin it declared.
null and void for fraud in its enactent. This z&t
becams stillmore notoriouslymemorableby its tibjed-
matterbeing litigated,and its historybeing devel-
oped in the report of the leadingcase of Fletcherv.
Peck, decidedby the SupremeCourt of the United States
in 1816. (6 Cranch,U.S., 87.)
Hon. Allan Shivers,F'age3 (V-1254)
"Hencethis provisionlimitingthelegislative
power, hasbeen adoptedinmnyif not most of the
Constitutionsof the differentStates of ths Union.
djlngsv. San Antonio,47 Tex. 548, 555,
;5i &3;;.-
In 1851 the Texas'Suprene
court, in an opinionby
Chief JusticeHemphill,held that Section24 of ArticleVII
rasmlaatory,notmerelyairectory.
The evils to be avoidedby this constltutionallimi-
tation have been discussedin iumerousc&es. Typical of these
discussionsis the followingfrom Stons v. Brown, 54 Tex. 330
(188lrat 342, in which the SupremeCourt of Texas said:
"Ths principalobjectof this constitutional pro-
vieion la to advisethe lsgislaturstid the people of
the naturs of each particularbill, so as to prevent
the insertionof obnoxiousclauses,which other@e
might be engraftedthereuponand become the law; and
aleo $0 preventconibinations,whsrsbyw+dbs concen-
ttitedthe votes of the friendsof differsntmeasurk .f
nohe of which could pass singly;thus causingeach
bill to stand on its own merits.3
In CooleytsConstitutional
Ll.mi~at,ions
(8thEd. 1927)
295, ths purposeof the constitutional
provisionis -ised
as follows:
n. . . It rcay.therefore
be assumedas settled
that the purposeof thess provisionswas: first,to
:prevsnthedge-podgeor 'log-rolling' .&egisl$$;
second,to preventsurpriseor fraud upon the legisla-
ture by means of provisionsin bills of which the title,s,
.g .Georgiawas the first State to place this type of limi-
tation in its constitution.There are now 41 Statesthat have
provisionsof this generalnature. &ly connectic.ut, Maine, Mas-
sachusetts,New Bampehire,North Carolina,Rhode Islandand Ver-
mont are withoutit. ConstStutional Limitationsupon Statute
Tltles.inLouisiana,6 La. LA 72, 78 (Comment1944).
g Cannonv. Hemphill,7 Tex. 184 (1851).
.1/ Similargtatementsare found in the g&era1 treatises,of
Freud, Standardsof AmericanLegislation,155, 156; 1 Sutherland
Statutoryconstruction(3rdEd. 1943) 287, Sec. 1702; 1 Cool6yle
Constitutional
Limitations(8thEd. 1927) 294, 295, 296.
Hon. Allsn Shivers,Page 4 (V-1254)
gave no Intimation,and which might thereforebe over-
lookedand carelesslyandunintentianallyadoptea;
and, third,to fairlyapprisethe people,throughsuch
publicationof legislativeproceedingsas is usually
made, of the subjectsof legislationthat are being
considered,in or&r that they may have opportunity
of being heard thereon,by petitionor otherwise,if
they shall so desire."
In 1 Sutherland,StatutoryConstruction(3rdEd. 1943)
290, it is stated:
". . . It preventsthe surreptitious passageof
laws containingprovisionsincongrouswith the subject
proclaimedin the title. It militatesagainst 'omnibus,'
or multi-subjectlegislation, the practiseof procuring
dlves~ anduurelatedmatterstobe passedas one act
throughthe consolidated vote of.thcadvocates of each
separatemaasure,whenuerhausuo sinalemeasurecould
ha& been pasf&~oz.i its-ownmerits. It also prevents
the attachmsutof uudeeirable!riders~upon:bille kek-
passed beeause'oftheir.~lic,``
taln to 'be' ity
oFdesirability." (Emphasisadded throughout:)"'
The last sentenceabove quoted frOm Sutherlandis.
partlcula+y applicableto geueralapprop&tion bills..It
is c&tAinthattheyare desirableand.iufad necessarylegis-
lii+,ion.Asausu&thiug,thist~ ofbill comesup fo+&ui
+?T8tion late IIIthe E~SS~OII and mu& bepassed. Ev&;permis-
sibli and appropriateridersare often attachedin conference
committee,and the entirebill is submittedto the House slidthe
Senate on a."takeor leave it" vote. Iu such instances,there
is no opportunityfor-publicnotice,full discussion,~amsndment,
or eliminationof a particularrider. Legislatorsare called
upon to vote for the entirebill as draftedby the conference
committeeor vote againstthe entirkbilli
In the sams manner,the entire generalappropriation
bill is submittedto the Governor. Ik can veto appropriation
items and riders,but he doe6 not have the power to veto non-
appropriating riders. AttorneyC+eral's opinionNo..V-llg6
(1951). If an objectionable matter of generallegislationis
containedin a non-appropriating rider, the Governormust never-
thelessaccept it or else veto the entire generalappropriation
act. :Thishe can seldomaffordto do.
The constitutional limitationnow under consideration
was aimad at praventingsuch situations.T,hiswas statedby the
Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 5 (V-129)
SupremeCourt of PennsylvanIa,a State which has a similarcon-
stitutionalprovision,in Commonwsalthv. Barustt,1% Pa. 161,
48 A. 976 (lgol),as followsz
11
. . . by joininga number of differ& subjectsin
one bill the governor was put under compulsionto ac-
cept sons enactmentsthat hs could not approve,or to
defeatthe whole, includingothersthat he thought
desirableor even necessary. Such bills, popularly
called *omnibusbills,'became a cryingevil, not ouly
from the confusionand distractionof the legislative
mind by the jumblingtogetherof incongroussubjects,
but stillmore by the facilitythey affordedto cor-
rupt combinations of minoritieswith differentinter-
ests to force the passageof bills with provisions
which could mver succeedif they stood,onthsirsepa-
rate merits. So,~omon was this practicethat it got
a popularname. universallyunderstood,as ~logrolling.'
A kill more objectionabls~practice grew up, of putting
what is known as a 'rider'(that is, a new~andunrelated
enactmentor provision)on ths ~appropriationbill~, and'
thus'kokrcingtheexecutiveto approve'obnoxioils legis-
lation,or bring the wheels of.ths governmentto a stop
for want of funds. Thesewere some ofthe evilswhich
the later changesin the constitution were intendedto
nm?dy* . .."
Again with specificreferenceto the reasonfor this
type of constltutlonailimitation in the case of appropriation
. bills,tha SuprktsCourt ofOregon +a:
The evidentpurposeof this provisionwas to
preventmsttersforeignto the generalpurpo* of ap-
propriationbills being attachedto them as riders,
therebytakingadvantageof the necessityof the state
for money to defrayits currentexpensesand to pay
its officersto pass measurasthat perhapswould other-
wise have been defeated." Evsnhoffv. State Industrial
AccidantCommission,154 .Pac.106, 111 (1915).
Three changeswere made in the wordingof this Article
IJAthe c~stituth of 1876. The provisionwas moved from the
GeneralProvisionssectionof the Constitutionto the Iegisla-
tive Sectionwhere it became Section35 of Article III, with the
wording it has today, It is quoted in full on page 1 of'this
opinion. The reasonsforthethree changesare readilyapparent.
The exceptionmade for appropriation bills was to insurethat no
courtwould hold the appropriationfor each subjector account
Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 6 (V-3254)
a separategeneralsubjectand as a resulti-squire a multiplic-
ityofappropriationbills;audths savingclausswas addsdto
preventthe strikingdownofths whole ofths Act. The other
basic chauge,from the use of ths word "object"to "subject,"
has been explainedas ping an attemptto m&e the whole provi-
sion less restrictive. The generalpurposeand objectof the
constitutionalprovisionremainsdths ssms.
In dealingwith Section35 of ArticleIII, a ruls of
liberalinterpretation has alwaysbeen applied. Ths tendency
of the dscislonsis to construethe constitutioual provisions
onthis subjectliberallyrathsrthanto embarrasslegislation
by a construction whose strictnessis -cessary to the accom-
pllshmsntof the beneficialpurposefor which it was adopted.5
But at the same tims the Court has been carefulto point out,
as was orlgiuallydons by Chief JusticeHemphlllin Cannonv.
Hemphill;7 Tax. 184, 208 (1851),that t&is provisioncanuotbe
ignoredand thus nullified.
,Withreferenceto generalappropriation bills, ths
SupremeCourt of Texas has held that "the appropriatingoffunds
to be paid from the StateTreasuryis's ~mibject``withiu he
mesuingof ArticleIII, Ssdion 35, of oul.constitution." 2 It
is clear frouths terms of the constitutional provisionthat
geueralappropriationbillsmaycontainmorethan ens subject
of this sanbsnature,i.e., appropriations for the variousde-
partxfsntsand accounts. The exceptlouof generalappxopriation
bills from the constitutionalprohibitiou againstbills.contaiu-
ing more than one subjectis a limitedand restrictedexception.
The exact wordingIs
". . . except generalappropriation
bills, which may
embracethe varioussubjectsand accounts,for and
on accountof.whichmoneysaFe to bs appropriated
. . .II
As long as a gene-1 appropriationbill includesonly
subjectsof appropriatingmoney and likitingthe use thereofin
harmonywith generallegislation,it may relateto any numberof
UJ 'Stone.v.Brown,~54 Tex. ,330,341~(1881),and Travelers
ProtectiveAssociationof Americav. Ziegler,250 SiW. lll5, I..u~,
.(.Tex.
Civ. App. 1923, error ref.).
I/ Giddingsv. San Antonio,47 Tex. 548 (1877);Dellinger
v. State,28 S,Wi2d 537 (Tex. Grim. App. 1933).
q Moore v. Sheppard, 144 Tex. 537, 192 S.W.2d 559 (1946).
Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 7 (V-1254)
different"subjectsand accounts." In suchimtancesallof
the subjectsa.r$under the one generalpbjectand purpose of
appmprfatingfhde fromthetreasury. !i!he obviou?purposeof
this l.kited.~xceptionwastolPahe certaintb&.appropriations
to more than one departmentin the same bill would not be pro-
hibited. In all other respectsgeneralappropriation bills
are subjectto the 88013prohibitionas all otherbills against
contalnlngmore than one subject. The result is that general
legislationcsmotbe embodiedulthina generalappropriation
bill. Moore v. Sheppard,supra.
A generalappropriationbillmaybe deflnedas a single
bill which appropriatesfunds for two or more departments,sub-
jects,accounts,or purposes. Ithasthe one generalpurposeor
mbject matterof appropria&g money.7
Oenerallegislationdaagmorethanappmpriate money
andl+titsexpsImtllre. AssaidbyafonssrAtto~yGeneral
a opipronNo. 2965 0935)p
*. . . iithcBilldoeemonthansetael~a~of
monsy,providethe means of its.'di&ributlon,and tO
vhom it shallbe distributed,then it is .ageneral
lav...;"
Thus,the distindionbetvpen~ralappropriatian
bU and e=nersllagi+Wion has been r+tgni+ irithie state . .
Inthe ~h@lefactthatthe formrmerely@ts apa$suq of'
molrapf~gaAfic obJ+ganduseswhilethe lattardqepmore
than+Myappropriateandlimittheuse~f~iunds. C&neral
legislationConstituteeaseuaratem&S&t andcannotbe ln-
clkdwlthlna generalappr~priakmbiil. Moo&v. Sheppard,
supra;Att'y Gen..Op.2965, mpra.
This does not mean 4hat ge!qal legislationmay not
containanappropriatlanwhichismere~ incidentaltoaudneces-
sexy to carry out the subjectand purpose of.the generaljaw.
u The Arizonfr S&ems Court has said:- The generalappro-.
priationbillieno~ inthetrue sense of the Wxqlegislation;
it is, as the lauguageImplies,merely a settingapart of the
funds necessaryfor the use andmaintenanceof the v&riousdepart-
mznts of the &ate governmentalready inexistence andtiction~
ins." Sellersv. Fn&miller, 24 P.2d 666, 669 (Aris.Sup:l933).
TheNevadaSup- Court has said: 'The?+approp~iationbille~
as indicatedby the titles,are p+sed fv cpp+ ef the s+&e-
government, and are pot legislativeacts changingtk, +zbstantive
orgenerallaws. . . ." State v..Eggem, 136 P. 100, 101 (Nev.
slip:1913).
.Hon.Allan Shiv'qs,Page 8 (v-129)
AttorneyCensral*sOpinionNo. 2965, supra. Neitherdoss it
meanthata generalappropriationbFUm``ynotcontain~ral
provisionsaad.~taFlslimitingandr‘estrictingt~use of the
fundsthereinappropriated, if.suchprovisionsare necessarily
connectedwith and incidentaltoths aooropriation and use of
ths funds and if they do not conflictiith-or.
amountto general
legislation.Conleyv. Daughtersof the Republic,106 Tex. 80,
156 S.W. 197 (qu).
Th? generalrule with referenceto all bills was stated
by the SupremeCourt of Texas in Phillipsv. Daniel,94 S.W.2d
1193, llfl'(Tex.Civ. App. 1936, error ref.),as follows:
"The law is settledthatunderthe Constitutional
provisionreferredto @tlcle III, Section3fl auy num-
ber of provisionsmay be containedin the samsbill or
act,houeverdivsrsatheymaybs; the only requirement
beingthatthsyare conslstentuithths generalobJect
or subJect,andhava amutualralationsndconnsdion,
dQedlyor indirectly,withths generalsubjector ob-
ject of the act or bill."
With specialregardtowhat incidentalprovisionsmay
bs includedwithin a generalappropr~iation bill, our Texas courts
have not stateda general.rule..I@ever, from statementsas to
what may not bs includedand from numsrousopinionsof the Attor-
nqGeneral,ve~belie~the ru&sniqbe state!generallyas fol-
lows:-Inadditiontd appropriatingmoneyandstipulatingthe
amount,namer, and purposeof the varlous~itemsof expsnditure,
a generalappropriation bill may containany provisionsorelders
which detail,limit,or restrictthe use of the funds or othsr-
wise inkrethatthemoneyis spantforthe requiredactivity
for which It is thereinappropriated,if.theprovisionsor riders
are necessarilyconnectedwith and incidentalto the appropriation
and use of the funds,and providedthey do not conflictwith gen-
eral legislation.8
g AttorneyGeneral'sOpinionNo. 2965 (1935) saysthat we'
shouldbe governedby the ordinarilyacceptedsksaning of "Appro-
priationBill" and quotesas accepteddefinitionsthefollowing:
"*A settingapart from the public rsvenueof a
certain-aimof money for a specificobject in such a
msnnerthat the executiveofficersof the government
ars authorizedto use thatmoney.and no more for that
objectand for no other.' C.J. -iol.,~4, pa@ 1460.
"Websterdefinesan appropriation bill as follows:
"'A measurebefore a legislativebody authorieing
the expenditureof.publicmoneys and stipulating the
amount,manner,and purpose of the various items of
expenditures.'"
Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 9 (V-1254)
In supportof this generalstatementof the rule we
call your attentionto the cass of Lindenv. Finley,92 Tex. 451,
49 S.W. 578 (l&p), in which the SuprenwCourt of Texas said:
"Thereis nothingin the Constitutionwhich prohibitsthe Legis-
lature from limitingsny appropriation by any apt words exprss-
sive of their intent." Also, in Conlsyv. Daughtersof the Re-
public,106 Tex. 8C, 156 S.W. 197 (1913),the Court uphelda pro-
vision in &general appropriation bill which requiredthat funds
appropriatedthereinfor improvementof the Alamo propertywere
to be expsndsdupon approvalof the Governor. The Court said:
"It cannotbethata separateand independentlaw
wouldbe necessaryto directand controlthe expendi-
ture of every item of appropriation."
Courts of severalother Stateswith similarconstitu-
tlonalprovisionshave appliedthis generalrule. A riders that
limitedexpensesfor transportation, lodgingand subsistence to
a $5 per day maxlnnnawas held valid in New Mexico. The Suprsms
Court ofthat'.Statesaid, "!l!hsdetailsof spendingthemoney so
a````d,~irhichslp necessarilyconnsctedwithand. . .
. . . don0tviolatethe Ccmstitutioniiincorporated
in such generalappropriation bill." Whittierv. Safford,214
Pac. 759 (N. Msx. Sup. 1923). The MississippiSiiprems Court has
said: :Ths legislaturscan providsin bills makingappropria-
tions for the expenditureof the monsy, andths conditionson
whicli.itmaybe drawn+e~thetreasory, add for the administra-
tion of the fund so long'asthe machinerycreatedis'limitedto
ths appropriationso made." Trotterv. Gates & Co.; &I So; 843,
846 (Miss.Sup. 1932). TheSuprsmeCourtofi4ontana,inholding
that a rider inanappropriationbill changingths methodof
paymsntout of a designatedfund is valid, said, ". . . so long
as incidentalprovisionsof an appropriation bill are germane
to ths purposeof the appropriationit does not conflictwith
any Constitutional provision. . . . What valid objectioncan bs
interposedto such a course,so long as the Legislatureconfines
the incidentalprovls.ions to the main fakt of the appropriation,
and does not attemptto incorporatein such act generallegisla-
tion, not necessarilyor directlyconnectedwith the appropria-
tionlegally made, under the restrictionsof the sectionin
@Lest Davi.dson.v..Ford,l!~Lp..2h-~3~..3~.(Mont. Sup.
F"
1943).
e/ ~Cnlythe State of Florida,where the Constitution pro-
vides that the appropriationbill shall coutainnothingbut appro-
priations,holds that any rider which in fact doss not appropriate
money is'invalid. Lee v. Dowda, 19 So. 2d 570 (Fla. Sup. 1944).
166 . Hall.
AlLanShiPe~%Pal+'l.o (V-1254)
This lnterpretatianoftherule applicabletorlders
ina generalapproprlationbillunderSection35 of ArticleIII
has been followedby the Texas Legislatum for msuy ysars. It
has continuouslyprovidedforaccolmtingprocedures inconzbx-
tlon with the funds appropriated,limited~theuse of coutiagent
expenseappropriations, set the rates fortravslexpeusstobe
paid from the fundsto State employees,spscifiedthstime of
'paymentof salariesappropriated, and.prohibitsd
use of appro-
priatedfmds forpaymntof salariesto "snyemployee.who uses
alcoholicbew?raSeswhile on active duty" or who engagesin cer-
tain politicalactivities. Riders ofthis natureinths general
appropriationbillareconstitutional,becausethsynrnlyds-
tail,limit,orrsstrlctthe use of the fundsappropriatedor
otherwIseinsursthatthe-ywillbeussdforthe purposes
i&en&d. liventhe riders prohibitingpaymentof salariesto
thosewho consumsalcoholicbeverageswhilsondutyorwhoen-
gage in politicalactivitiesare legitimateswans of inmuing
that the purposeoft&s appropriationwillnotbs defeatedand
thsnoneywastedonenployeaswho carryonunauthorlsedactivi-
ties daringthe time for which thay 85e bain~ p$dto'attendto
t&s stats'sbus~ss. IntheTexasLegislative'Manual.(1~),
page 263, this typi of provisionIs referredto as "a condition
attachedto au appropriation, upon failureto complywith which
the appropriatldnwillcease to be effective." See also pags
224.
.Approprfationbillriderswhich violateSsctlon35 of
ArticleIIXhave beenmore fr&ua&lydiscusssdbythe dourts:
snd the AttorneyGsneral'thanthos,awhich are propsrlywithinthe
scopeof‘suclibills. The majority of l&s rider.6which have been
strichurarethosewhichattempttomodiiyoramanda~ral
statute. It is well settledin this State that a rider attached
to a aeneralaimronriationbill cannotrewal. nodifyor amend
an existingg&r& law. State v..Steele;r(-Tex.203 (18&Z);
Llndenv. Finley,92 Tex. 451, 4.9'S.W.578 (l&J); Attorney
GeneaX's OpinionsNo. 1745 (19171,2787 (19291,2965 (19351,
2970 (1935);0-445 (1g39j1.
o,-1837~i1940),~0-2573(wo);-0.~5329
(1g43),v-412 (1947),and v-894 (1949).
In Statev. Steele, supra,Linden Y. Finlsy,supra,am
AttornsyGeneral'sOginions1745, 2787, 2965, mpra, it was held
that gnsral statutesfirinS salariesor fees couldnot be amen&
by a generalappropriation bill. Riders providingfor uss or
transferof specialfunds contraryto generalstatuteswhich pro-
vided for a differentdepositor use were hsldunconstitutional
by AttorneyGeneral'sOpinions2970 (1935),O-5329(19431,and
V-412 (1947). A rider requiringthree years residenceinTexas
beforebeing adatittedto the State TuberculosisSanatoriumwhen
Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 11 (V-1254)
the generalstatuterequiredonly citizenshipin Texas was held
invalidin AttornsyGeneral’s OpinionO-2573 (194'3).
Generallegislationattemptedin a'generalappropria-
tion bill, even thoughnot desiguedto modify or amend au exist-
ing statute,was condemnedby the SupremeCourt of Texas in Moore
v. Sheppard,supra. In that case the Legislaturshad provi&Z--
by rider iu the appropriation bill that the Clerks of the Courts
of Civil Appeals shoulddepositall unofficialfees collected
,bythsm in the StateTreasuryand that they shouldnot be paid
their salariesuntil and unless they filed au affidavitshoving
compliancetharewith.Moors refusedto complyand broughtsuit
to requirepaymentof his salary. The Couxtrenderedjudgmsnt
in his favor upon the groundsthat the rider attemptedto fir
fees of officeand that this was a subjectof geuerallegisla-
tion separateaudapart fromappropriatingmoneyandtherefors
unconstitutional.The Court said:
"Phatthe fixingof officialfees is a matter of
generallegislation, and is a *subJect'of generallegis-
lationwithin the IssaIling
of ArticleIII, Section35,
above, cannotbs questioned. . . .
n. . . that portionof the AppropriationBill setting
out for ths firsttime mattersnot germansthereto,
and dealingwith gsnexallegislationon the different
sndwhollymrelated ‘subject of fees chargedbypstl-
tiohersfor unofficialcopies,andprsscribingths dis-
positionof such fees, is in conflictwith the mandate
of Article III, Section35, and is unconstitutional.
. . ."
A similarrulingwasmads bythe AttorneyGeneralof
Texas in OpinionO-445 (1939)writtenby former.As6ociat.e Justice
James P. Hart concerninga rider which prohibitedState employees
from acceptingor using passes Issuedby transportation agencies.
In this opinionit was said:
'The anti-passprovisionsof the appropriation
bill do not constitutea regulationof the manner in
which the sums appropriatedthereinshallbs expended.
If construedas an impliedamendmentof the general
statutesprohibitingthe issuanceof free passes by
transportation agencies,said provisionswould be in-
valid since a generallaw'maynot be amendedby provi-
sions of a generalappropriation bill. See State v.
Steels,57 Tex. 200; Lindenv. Finley,92 TeX. 451."10
9 This riderwas also held unconstitutional
becauseit
was not coveredby the captionof the act.
Hon..AllanShivem, Page l2 (V-1254)
Examplesof valid and invalidridersin HouseBill 426,
the generalappropriation bill for the bieuniumendingAugust 31,
1953, may be found in Subdivision(15) of Section2, ArticleIII,
relatingto State-ownedautomobiles.The valid riderprovides:
,I
. . . No motor-propelled passenger-carrying
vehi-
cle may be purchasedwith any of the fundsappropriated
in this Article, . . ."
Thisisa constitutionalriderbecause it dossnoxorethanlimit
and restrictuse of the.fondsappropriatedby HouseBill 426.
The invalidrider readsas follows:
."AllState-ownedmotor-propelled passenger-
carqing vehiclesunder the controlof any department,
conmission,board, or otherStateagencyars hereby
declarsdtobe nolongerneeded. Suchmotor-propelled
passenger-carrying vehicles shallbe sold in compli-
- with and as providedfor in Article666, Revised
Civil Statutesof Texas,as amended,or otherwiseas
providedby law, not laterthan October1, 1951. . . .
provided,however,that theseprovisionsof this Ssc-
tion in regardto the sale and purchaseof motor-
propelledpassenger-carrying vehiclesshallnot apply
to the ExecutiveDepartment,StateHighwayDepartment,
Departmentof Pulbic Safety,Cuss,Fish and Oyster
Ccmds*ion, and the Railroad~ssion, providedthat
th+RailroadConmlssionshallonlykeepandhavs in its
possessionnot to.exceedtwenty (20)motor-propelled
passenger-camyfngvehiclesand the Texas PrisonSystem
shall only keep and have in Its possessionthosevehi-
cles equippedwith two-wayradios. Noticesshallbe
given in +M.ng to personsnow using said vehicles
of the time and place they are goingto be sold &order
that such persons may have an opportunityto bid on said
motor-propelled passenger-carryingvehicles."
Ths forsgoingrider is not incidentaltothe appropria-
tion of money or 'alimitationor restrictionof the use of money
appropriatedby House Bill 426. It relatesto an entirelydif-
ferent subjectand is generallegislation prohibitedby Section
35 of.ArticleIII of the Constitution.Att,orney Gsneral'sOpinion
No..V-1253 (1951). This rider illustrates
the reason for the con-
stitutional~prohibition againstgenerallegislationin an appropria-
tion bill. As pointedout in the above opinion,if this type of
legislationwere valid, it would be possiblefor the Legislatureto
providefor the sale of the State'sofficebuildingsor the public
169
Eon. AlUmShivers, Page 13 (V-1254)
schoollands ina generalappropriationbill. Clearly,the
sala of State-owsedautomobilesand other.propsrty,in the words
of the SupremsCourt inMoore v. Sheppard,supra,is ona "dif-
ferentand whollyurirelated subject"froivapproppiatingfunds.
This rider is also unconstitutional
becausethe captionof the
bill gives no noticewhateverof its presencein the bill. At-
torney General'8opinionv-l.253(1951).
As previouslypointedout, riders in an appropriation
bill may sosetisk?s
conflictwith Section1 of ArticleII of ths
Texas Constitution,which provides:
DThepowersof the Coverumentof the Stats of
Tees shallbe dividedinto three distinctdepartments,
each of which shall be confidedto a separatebody of
maglst.racy,to wit: Those which are Isgislativeto one;
those which are Executiveto anotheriaudthosewhich
ire Judicialto another;and no parson or collectionof
perffons,being of one of these departments,shallexer-
ciss auy power propsrlyattachedto either of the others,
exceptin the instsncesherein expresslypermitted.?
The LegislativeBudgetBoard, composedofthe Speaker
and four Ho&z membersappointedby him (includingChairmanof
tlw Appropriations Comittee and Chairmenof Revenueand Tsxa-
tionCommittee)audthe LieutenagtGovernorand four Senateem-
krsappointed~hhim(inclubingCbsirmanofFinancc Committee
and Chairmsnof StateAffairsCommittee)was createdby Senate
sill 387,.Acts 51t3tLeg., R.S., l$+g,'ch.k@, 'p.,906(Art.
5kZgc,V.C.S.) to serve in an iuvestlgatoryaudadvisokycapa-
city with respectto proposedappropriations.The Board'sfunc-
tions Eve supplementary to those of the Board of Controland the
Covernogas alreadyprescribedin Articles68ga:lthrough6&a-7,
V.C.S. Article6&a ime amsndsdby Senate Bill 413, Acts 52n8
m., R.S., 1951, ch. 332, p. 572.
There is no constitutioual questioninvolvedin
creationof such au advisorylegislativebudget conmittee. 1'
But the same Legislature,in a rider to its generalappropria-
tion bill for the Beard for Texas State Hospitalsend Special
Schools,went furtherin subjectingthe expenditureof trans-
ferredfunds and unexpendedbalancesby the Texas State Board
for Hospitalsand'Spedal Schoolsto the approvalof the
il.J~Ter+ll v. King, 118 Tex. 237, 14 S.W.2d786 (1929).
Eon. Allan Shivers,Page 14 .(v-1254)
I2
LegislativeBudgetBoard.
In like vein, the Fifty-secondIegislaturehas appended
severalsimilarridersto its generalappropriation bill, as fol-
lows:
The LegislativeBudgetCommitteebid is here-
by authorizedto requirequarterlybudget approvalprior
to the expenditureof enyofthe fuuds appropriatedto
the departmentsend agenciesof the State of Texas in
this Ad. Suchreq``ntwhenFxercisedshallbe made
by filingwrittennoticewith the State Comptrollerand
writtendirediim with the departmentor agency. After
tich notice,no moneys hereinappropriatedshallbe ex-
pendeduntil such budget approvalshallhave been se-
curea." ArticleIII, Section2, cbd. (34),LB. 426,
Acts 52nd Leg., 19.51.
nBuD(;gTAPPROVALJ6ENREQUISED.The Ie@+.etive
BudgetBoard is hereby authorizedto requirethe sub-
mimion of a budget for Ws approvalprior to the ex-
pepdltun of any of the funds appropriatedto the St&e
institutions of highereducationand to thepther edu-
cationalagenciesof the St&e of Texes nan~d in his
&kg article. Suchrequirement,whenexercised,shall
be made by filingwrittennoticewith the State.Comptrol-
ler a&written dir&&ion with the institutionor ageky.
After the effectivedate providedin ech notice,no man-
eys hereinappropriatedshellbe expendeduntil such
budget approvalshallbeen Bid beefisecured. The au-
thority&rantedby this peragraphshallbe exercised
only in emergncies. The LegislativeBudgetBoard
dalYdetermine when such an emergency~exists." Arti-
cle V, Sectiw’16, LB. ,426,Acts 52nd L&g., 1951.
/
"QuarterlyBudgets. The tigislativeBudgetR&d
shall requirequarterlybudget approval.prior to the ob-
ligation~orexpknditti of any of the'fundsappropriated
to the Board institutionsand the Centrd Officeti this
Article& No moneys herein appropriatedshallbe expended
until such budget kpprovalshall have been secured.!'Ar-
~ticieII, Section14, 'E.B.~
426, Acts 52nd Leg., 1951.
'a Section18(b)'and(c), House Bill 321, Acti 5lst Leg.9
R.S.,~1949;ch.842, pt 1084.
Non. Al.LsnShivers,Page 15 (V-1254)
Since the State departments,institutionsof higher
education,and other State institutionsare not a part of the
legislativebranchof the State government,these rider6, in
requiringfurtheritemizationof appropriations or approval
of the expenditureof appropriatedfunds by the Legislative
BudgetBoard, violatethe constitutional provisionprescrib-
..ingthe separationof powers.
The phrase "any power properlyattack&to either
of the others"promptsinquiryas to what powersbelongto
each branch. "Legislative" mans %zking, or havingthe power
to make, a law or laws." Webster'6New lnternationel Diction-
ary (2dEd. 1938). This includesmakIng and itemizingappro-
priations. :YChf.power to itemizeappropriation8 is a legisla-
U-power which it may exerciseif it sees fit as long as'the
is in its hanas. The legislationis completewhen the
appropriation-is &&.+ People v. Tremaiue,I.68N.E. 817 (N.Y.
Ct. App. 19s). The money once appropriated, the Le&slature
Is no longerauthorizedto concernitselfwith the fin-ther seg-
regationand disbursementof the funds,the constitutional in-
hibitionbeing not only againstactualusurpztionof the func-
tion, but also againstone departztent's settingItselfup in
a supervisorycapacityover the actionsof another.l3 Paren-
thetically,it maybe notedherethat if the approvalofpro-
posdexpenditures'beconsi&redalegislatlve function,still.
such functioncouldno be delee;ated by the body as a whole to
a'few of its zembers.lfi
The legislativefunctionbeing to make laws, the execu-
tive iunctionis to carry them out. Webster'sNew International
Dictionzry(2dEd. 1938), in Its definitionof "executive," uses
the phrases"or carryinginto effect" . . . "or zecurestheir
due performance."More specifically, the fizcaladministration
of the affairsof the governuetihas been held to be an execu-
tive duty.15 The above ridersthus attemptto vest au execu-
tive power in a joint cozmitteeof the legislativebranch.
AlthoughTexas cases upholdingthe separationof powers
are too nmrterous
to requirecitation,one exampleof an unwar-
rantedlegislativeinterference with the executivedepartmentis
the strikingdown of Article803a, V.P.C.., which prescribedthe
u Cooley'sConstitutional
Li$tations (8thEd. 1927) 227.
w Ex parte Youngblood,251 S,W. 509 (Tex. Grim.App. 1923).
w In re Opinionof the Justices,68 AtL.873 (N.H. Sup.
1907).
HCJL Al&an Shivers,Page 16 (V-U*)
to be worn by peace officersmskingarrests
Other ju.rlsdictions
likewiseabound in case authority.
The United StatesSupremeCourt struckdown an act of the Philip-
pine Legislature,creatinga gove-nt-ownedbsnkandcoalcom-
pany end vestingthe voting power thereofin a codttee includ-
inp the Presidentof the Senateand the Speakerof the House of
Representatives, as au attemptto engraftexecutivedutiesupon
a legisla vs officeand thus usurp the executivepower by indi-
rection.if Similarly,an act creatinga legislativecommittee
onStatewaterrightswasheld invalidwherethe court foundthat
the b@3lhuX! hadnot only&d? a &~Wbutn!a e a joint commit-
tee its executiveagent to carry out the law.18
A New York decisionexactlyin point, conc+rningan
appropriationfetteredby a provisionthat the money appropriated
k spent ouly with.approvalof two legislativeofficers,held un-
constitutionalthe provisionof StateFinanceLaw, # 139, re-
quirlngsuch approval,the Court of Appeals saying:
'The Legislaturehas not only mads a law--i.e.,
an appropriation--but has made two of its membersex
officioits executiveagentsto carry out the law;
i.e., to act on the segregationof the appropriation.
This is a clear and ccmspicuousinstanceof au attempt
bythe Legislatursto conferadmluistrative power upon
Go Of ItS owu members." Peoplev. Tremaine;168 N:E.
817, 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).
AttorneyGeneral'sOpinionNo. O-4609 (1942)is also
in point. That opinionconst~eB a rural aid appropriation bill
(H.B. 284, Acts 47th Leg., R.S., 1941, ch. $9, p. 880). In
that statutea joint legislativeadvisorycomnittee,composed
of five Senatemembersand five House members,was given power
to approvenumeroustransactions,includingthe receiptof tui-
tion paymentand @anspotiation aid by schooldistricts. The
AttorneyGeneralruled that only so much'ofthe act as created
a joint 1egisLativeadvisoFycommitteeto study schoollaws as
an aid to their recodification was constitutional,whereasthe
provisionsimposingupon said committeeof the Legislaturethe
authorityto administerthe law were unconstitutional. ,_
l6J Scogginv. State, 38 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. Grim.App. 1931).
II/ Springerv. PhilippineIslands,277 U.S. 169, 202 (1927)
W StOCkmanV- L-=aaY,55 Colo. 24, I29 Pac. 220 (1912).
173
Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 17 (V-1254)
Therefore,in so far as the powersend dutiesof the
LzgislativeBudgetBoard are extendedin HouseBill 4.26beyond
the dutiesprescribedfor that Board in the statuteby which it
was created,the Legislaturehas attemptedto placeupon the
Board dutieswhich are in violationof Section1 of ArticleII
of the Terns Constitution.
HouseBill 426 containsa total of 235 riders. Their
validityor invaliditycan be determiuedin most instancesby
applyingto each specificrider the generalrules herelnstated.
In some instances,however,the question&ay be closeenoughto
require additionalopinions.
At this time severalopinionrequestsare pendingin
this officerelatingto the validityof specificriderswhich
hzve not been discussedin this opinion. We shallbe pleased
to furnishyou a copy of each additionalop$nionas it is corn-
pletd.
In so far as Section35 of ArticleIII of the
Texas Constitutionis concerned,in aaditionto ap-
propriating money and stipulatingthe amount,msnuer,
and purposeof the variousitems of expenditure to
variousdepartments and accounts,a generalapproprla-
tion bill may containeny provisions.or riderswhich
deteil,limit,or restrictthe use of the fun&3 or
otherwiseinsurethat the money is spentfor the re-
quiredactivityfor which it is thereinappropriated,
if the provisionsor ridersare necessarilyconnected
with and incidentalto the appropriation and provided
they do not conflictwith generallegislation.
Ridersprovidingfor accountingproceduresin
connection with the funds appropriated,lImitlugthe
use of contingentexpenseappropriations; settingthe
rates for travelexpenseto be paid from the.fundsto
Stateemployeea,specifyingthe time of paymentof
,``lzries appropriated and prohibitingthe use of ap-
propriatedfunds for the paymentof salariesto "any
employeewho uses alcoholicbeverageswhile on active
duty" or.whoengagesin certainpoliticalactivities
are valid in a generalappropriation bill because
they merelydetail,limit,or restrictthe use of the
fwds appropriated or otherwiseinsurethat the money
will be used for the purposesintended. They do not
174 Non. AllaIlsuverI3,Pe@ 18 (v-12541
constituteadditionalsubjectsof gepesallegislation
inviolationofSection35 ofArticle III offheTexas
constitutiorL.
Riders attemptingto fix salariesend fees or
transferfunds contraryto generalstatutesareuncon-
stitutlcmal,because agenmalappropriationbill can-
not amend,modify,or repeal a generallaw.
Arider~prcdding for the sale of State property
is notrelatedor incidentaltothe appropriationof
funaz. It la generallegislationon a subjectother
thanappropriationsandtherefore camotbe constitu-
tionallyenactedin a generalappropriation bill.
Sec. 35, Art. III, Con&. of Texas;Att'y Gen. Op.
r253 ( 1951) -
The riders inthe,generalappropristionbillwhich
seekto conferupona joiutbOBldcomposedofnmnbers
of the Legielature(Lsgielative Budget Board)author-
ityto repuircfurtherltemisationof appropx%atedfwi
ora``oft~e*pendituret~reofviolatt Section
1 of Article II of the Constitutionof Texas, which pro
hibitst&e exerciseby the legielatlvebranch of~powers
properlyattacbedtothe executivebrmch.
AttorneyGeneral
E. Wayne Mode
Assistante