Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF ME ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
mn. oia B. VW mat, ohaw
solnt-Legl?JlJatiYr AaYisory 0onuliitt.e
Tioga, Tuae
PproprlateB from ti8dal years of eaaary far the aq- not to e%aeed ~933 provides In part: ets of abminister- this AOt shall be ed in thin Act, and the amounts antI a8 al Departmental Appropria- nt biennium a8 therein' ervhe, exoept aa 0theZwise hen rmwmclba to allooate out of ths e in Seation l1 for each year of the appropriation bieprrium, the followIngI
Hon. Olan R. Van !Zandt, Page 3.
the sum of $6.750.00 for the iohool Plants Dlvlslon of the Department of Eduoatlon; the mm of $10,000.00 for the Census DIvlalon ln the Dapartmant of lkluoatlon tobe ex- panded for seasonal labor ln'tlm ehecklng of the oensus rolle, ana the sum of )6,600.00 to be used by the State Audltor~s Dapartmant, ae fo~ower
Aooountant in oharga of mUal aid applioatlons,~$3;000.00; Junior Aaoountant, $1,800.00; Junior Aooouutant, $1,800.00.
Your rpaclflo attention la ulraotaa to tha language a8uoh expenditures shall be the Bnounta and as authorized br the General Departmental Appropriation Bill for the currant biennium as therein itemike& and not otherwise, exoapt a8 otherwise herein provIdefLu
That the language aexoept as otherwise harain provided" ha8 dlraot reference to the approprlatlons spac- fleally made both ae to purpoee and amount for the State Audltor~s Department Is olsar, and 1s made the more appar- ant by observing that the General Departmental Approprlatlon Blll raoognlzad these epaelflo*ltemlzed approprlatlons to the state Auditor's Dapartmant, inthat no provision was made in the General Departmental Appropriation Bill for fheee employees' in the State Audltor'a Department since they had already bean definitely provided for in f&use Bill 933.
Saotlon 11 does not purport to make the allooatiom tharaln mantionad~avallabla to the department as a lump sum appropriation, but apeoifically provides that the ex- pendlturaa therefrom ahall be *the amount6 as authorized by the General Departmental Appropriation Bill for 2ha our- rant biennium ati therein Itemized anb not otharwlaa.*
In the Ganarnl Departmental Appropriation Bill,
under thasa spaoiflo headings, the Legislature Itemized in detail expenditures to be made from these allooations, such Itemizations oovarlng the full amount thereof. The Covernor, in the exercise of hIhis veto power, eliminated from the General Departmental Appropriation Bill ear%& Items thereof. Such veto naoessarlly was oomplataly effao- tlva to allmlnata suuh expenditures. Under the tema of Saotlon 11, there oan be no eurplus subjeot to the jUrlsdlO- tlon 0r the Limitation of Payments Board, as aonstltutea in the Gauaral Rider tothe General Departmental Appropriation *3 Hon. Ol.an R. Van Zandt, Page 3
Bill, for the reason that l xpandltuxas out of the dllooa- tions referred to ara expressly l.imitad by Saotion 11 of House Bill 033 to the amount6 authorized and itamlzaa in the General Dapartnantal Appropriation Bill, and there Is a spaoiSlo provision against any i'urthax expenditures by the use of the words aand not atharwlse.m
You are therefore advised that there is, in this approprlatlon no surplus In a spaolal fua of tha aharaotar made subjeot to the jurlsdiotion of the Liaitation of Pay- ments Board in tha Rider to tba Dapartmantal Appropriation Dill.
Yours vary truly ATTORNEYG~ OFT'ELIS BY (B) R,.Vi. Fairahlld Aseis tent RWFtPbP
APPROVED SEP 12, 1939
(II) Gorald C. &WI
ATTORNEYGRNFJULOF TEXAS APPROVED
opinion ammittaa By BWD ahalrman