Reference i:- made to your letter of April 22, 1948, which reads:

nThis Commission has found it necessary in certain phases of disease control to prop- erly identify and designate specific ani-~ mals. For this purpose there is contemplat- ed the purchase of metal ear tags.

"There is appropriated to the Commission for the biennium ending August 31,~1949, five thousand dollars for dipping material and cattle marking paint. It occurs to us that the word material, as used in the ap- propriation, embraces the implements or ap- paratus necessary to do a particular thing- this particular thing being the identifica- tion of livestock.

"Cattle marking paint is used for temporary identification, while the metal ear tag is a permanent identification of an animal.

QUESTION: Can the appropriation for dipping material and cattle marking paint be construed to embrace metal ear tags for *2 . .

proper identification of live- stock, and may expenditure for such tags be made out of ap- propriation for dipping mater- ial and cattle marking paint?" The appropriation to which you refer is Item 15 of the appropriation made to the Commission for the first year of the current biennium (Act.9 50th Legisla- ture, p. 885) and reads:

"Dip Material and Cattle Marking Paint $5000."

In Conference Opinion No. 2374, dated August 1.8, 1921, a. former Attorney General had under consider- ation the question of whether an appropriation made for a specific purpose could be expended for another purpose. The opinion held:

"It is the law of this State that no part of the money appropriated by the Legis- lature can be used by any person charged with its expenditure 'for any purpose other than the specific purpose named in the appropria- tion bill. An expenditure for a purpose oth- er than the one for which the money was ap- propriated would be a misapplication of pub- lic funds. The Comptroller would not be au- thorized to draw his warrant on any fund for any purpose except the purpose named in the Act, and the Treasurer would be without auth- ority to honor a warrant on any fund for any purpose except that named in the appropria- tion bill."

We are in accord with the views expressed in that opinion.

The'Legislature is presumed to have known that cattle branding paint and metal ear tags are used for i- dentification purposes. A metal ear tag cannot be class- ified as cattle marking paint. The Legislature'specifi- tally named such paint asone of the two purposes of the appropriation, but did not so name metal ear tags. It appears to us that if it had considered such paint as a dip material, it would not have specifically named it as *3 -

one of the purposes of the appropriation. In view of that fact, we believe it would be a strained construc- tion of the appropriation to hold that a metal ear tag is a "dip material.* Therefore, your question is an- swered in the negative.

Furthermore, you have advised us that metal ear tags are necessary in certain phases of disease con- trol to properly identify and designate specific animals, and are used for permanent identification. The Legisla- ture evidently recognized this fact and appropriated to the Livestock Sanitary Commission $1,000 for each year of the current biennium for "Control of Conta ious Diseases including Supplies." (Acts 50th Leg., p. 8 85, Item 21). While this Item does not specifically name metal ear tags as one of its purposes, yet the language used therein is sufficient to include such tags. In our opinion this is the proper appropriation from which expenditures may be made for metal ear ta.gs when used for the control of con- tagious diseases or in aid thereof.

SUMMARY An appropriation~made by the Legislature to the Livestock Sanitary Commission for the purchase of "Dip material and cattle marking paint" may not be legally expended for metal ear tags, for the reason such a tag is neither a dip material nor a cattle marking paint.

Yours very truly, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS /i&A4.e .u. /-LyAql BY Bruce W. Eryant :Assistant BWB:wb

FJgZSd

ATTORNEY GENERAL