Your letter of September 10, 1941, etates that one OS your profe’eaeore vae advised aeveral months ago that hle contract would not be renewed beyond the term of the mnnner eohool employment; that no mneval of hle oontract haa been had nor ia a reneval contemplatedi that he has no oontraat for a further period; that he, being a member of the American Aseooiation of University Profeaeors, placed his cam before that organieatlon, and said aeeoclatlon ie Lneieting that aa a Rterminel adjustment” Tsxae Teohuolo$ioal College should offer the profeaeor one ye-la ealarg in lieu OS his oontln- uanoe."

You atate in your op%nlon that this vould be vio- lative of the lava of Texas, and eeek our opinion with refer- enae thereto.

You are correct in your etstement that ttie pro- oeedLng vould be ti violation of the lave of thie State. Any vould be a pure gratnlty, ru& payment to the professor pro- III, Seation 51, of the Constitution hibited by Artiole of this state, vhioh reada In part ae follove:

“The LsgLialature shall have no pover to make any grants or authorlse the making of any granttz of public money8 to any individual, association of ladivlduals, munlclpal or other corporations vhataoever; . . .*

Sinoe Texaa Teohno&ogioal College ia but BJ~ lnatru- mentality or agency of the State, deriving euuh povera aa it *2 Bonoreble Czlitord B. Jones, page 2

poraearer er suoh by ilelegatlon from the Legislature, end d.noe the nmneye provided for ita operation are pub110 moneya, it is obvious that Texas Technological College aan poeeeae no pover OF authority vixloh the Sagialature, under the Oonstitu- tion, is prohibited Srcm granting to it.

RWtdb

k