Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Honorable M. a. nor&an, cha1rzlm Approprlat ions Coomtttee
aouae of Reprerrentatlves
AIM tin, Texas You have eubmitt oaslderatfm tlouse ii111 30. 157 by C opriatioa of $1,057.7L3 curred by the alar to pay par diem a board neenbers 02 the la attending meeting8 held 1 July hu&ust, tar that the regular approprlatiow
ion U88 obtained by the board ur requeat that some doubt exists e, or some of the members thareof, ure can legally u&e this approprlatio!b h&her is any conrtltutlooal provl- approprlatloa.
reads aa follows:
“The members of the State Board Of Educa- tloa, created by this Act, aball be paid ‘Pea Ml- lars per day vheo In actual attaadaace upon Board *2 IiOuOrable M. 8. Morgan, page 2
tbeetlngs, aud shall be eatitled to actual trav- eling aud other necessary expenaee incurred f.u the discharge of their duties. Each member shall take ,the coastltutlonal oath of office.*
Article III, seotloo 44, of t&e Coustitutloa of Texas, provides, la partr . . . shall not . . . graot
*The Leglalature by l pproplatioua or otherwise, any ausouut of moaeJ out of the Treaaurp the Ytate to cay lndlvldual, on a clelm, real or pretended, vheu aame &all not have baea prorlded for by pre- existing law. . . .*
The Suprerae Cwwt OS TeXad, la Fort Worth Cavalry Club v. Sheppard, 83 S. Y. (24) 660, said; is asttled aa the lav of this 3tate ‘It,
uuder the piovlslons of section 44 of article 3 of our State Couatltutlon, la from epproprlatlq prohibited state aoaey to my ~lrrdlvldual~ on any claim, unlees, at very time the approprlatlon 1s made, la already in Porte scam pre-exlatlng valid law couatitut- lug the claim the appropriatlou 1s rrmde to pay a legal and valid obligation against the atate.
Pinally, It 1s settled br legal ob- i$a;loo ts meant such an obligation as vould form the bash of a Judgment against the lrtate iu a court of competent jurisdiction, lo the event the Leglrlature should permit it to be sued.” Auatlo Hat ional Bank v. Sheppard (Tea. Coa. App.
oplaioa adopts@ by Suprsme court), l23 Tex. 272, 71 5. U. (2d) 242; Austlu gatlonsl Bank v. Sbep- Corn. App. opimion adopted b Supreme 123 Tex. 2b0, 71 3. Y. (2d) 24 iI 1 CorSiC8M Cottou’bkills Y. 3heppard (Tex. Cola, App, 0,pialon ado ted by Supreae Court), 123 Tex. 352, 71 3. Ii.
(2dp 247; llchols v . Ytate 11 Tex. Civ; Ppp. 327, State v. Alderman 32 Y. Y. 452 (urlt refusedjj (Tex. clv. ~pp.) 163 9. Y. 1020 (vrlt refused); Sate Y. Wlleon, 71 Tex. 291, 9 3. Y. 155.
. ’
. _
BoQorable n. B. Morgan, page 3
Ia view of f oregolag authmltles, tt is our oplalon Article 2675b-10 la a pre-existing law wlthln the meaning of Article III, Sectioo 44, of the Constitution, and that fiouse Bill No. 157 does not contravene said sectloa.
We have also considered said Bill in c.anectl.on vlth Article III, Section $9, of the Coostltutlon, vhlch ln- hlblts creatSoa of a debt, except for certain stated pur- poses, and it 18 our oplnloa that the expeadltures herein ln- rolved did not create a “debt” agafnst the State of Texas ulthln the meanlog of that term as used la the Constitution.
You are further advised that we irnov of uo constl- tutloaal provlsloo uhlch would pevent from lawfully making the contenplated approprlatlon provided for ia aouse Bill Ho. 157. The fact. that uo deficiency authorlza- tlon was obtained from the Goveruor as provided for la Arti- cle 4351, Veroon’s Annotated Civil jtatutes, Is lmmterlal, alms Article 2675b-10 a~uthorlted the members of ths Board to incur the expeasea aad obligates the State to pay the sam as well a8 their per diem.
Ye are eaclosl.ng herewith aouse Bill Ho. 157 Judge k‘atklns’ letter. ve have satisfactorily ansrered your ‘Prustfng
inquiry, ve are very truly
Yours ATT~FWEI GENEBAL OF TE;XPS . .~./ .- BY .I . C. Davis, Jr. _.. .d Assisiant JCD:db
Enclo8ures