c - R-386

Hon. George H.~,Sheppard Comptroller of Public Accounts Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1113

Re: Amount oftraveling expcsse which can **be** allowed to a District Attorney per day.

Dear Sir:
Your’ request far an opinion uponthe above matter is as follows: subject

YThis Department has received atraveling expense account from a certain District Attorney claiming reimbursement for expenses incurred by him onthe same **day** which are; hotel room $3.00, three meals at $1.50 each ar $4.56, making a total expenditure of $7.50 for that **day.**
“This Department requests answers ta the fellowing questions. Does the language ‘

. . . net tm exceed four dollars per day for h,otelbills,

. . . .’ inArticle 020 V.R.C.S. limit the reimbursement to only feur dollars for both lodging andmeals in the above instance? Or is the Attorney entitled to a reimbursement of the entire $7.501 Inthis connection I,wishto call your attention your opinion No. O-7072.”
Article 6820 ofthe Revised Civil Statutes is as fellows:
“All district judges anddistrict attorneys whenengaged in the dis,charge of their official eduties.in any county in this State other thanthe county of their residence, shall be allowed their actual and necessary expenses while actually engaged inthe discharge of such duties, not to exceed four dollars per day for hotel bills, andnot to exceed four cents a mile when traveling by railroad, andnot to exceed twenty cents a mile when traveling by private conveyance, in going to and returning from the place where such duties are discharged, traveling by the nearest practical route.Hon. George H. Sheppard - Page 2 Opinion No. V-183

Such officers shall also receive the actual andnecessary postage, telegraph andtelephone expenses incurred by them in the actual discharge of their duties. Such expenses shall be paid by the State uponthesworn and itemized account of each district judge or attorney entitled thereto, showing such expenses. Indistricts containing more thanone ceunty, such **expenses** shall
never exceed inany one year $100.00 for each county inthe district; provided that no district judge or attorney shall receive more than $600.00 in any one year under the provisions of this article. The account for said services shall be recorded in the official minutes ofthe distrkt court of the c,ountyinwhich such judge or attorney resides, respectively.”

‘I, WC assume thatthe District Attorney whose accounts you are auditing was traveling in the discharge ofhis official duties in a county **other.** thanthe county of his residence. Your question involves a construction of the words “hotel bills” as the same are used in Article 6820.

This statute is an old one, and is, perhaps, one of the precursors of present statutes (or appropriation riders) limiting travel expense of public officers.

An examination will show quickly that its purpose was to allow to District Attorneys their actual andnecessary expenses while actually inthe discharge oftheir duties whentraveling in any county other thanthe county of their residence. It further plainly limits the expenses thus allowed to the necessary expenses, and places a maximum limitation uponsuch actual andnecessary expenses of $4.00 per day for “hotel bills,” andnot to exceed -four cents a mile when traveling by railroad” andnot to exceed “twenty cents a mile whentraveling by private conveyance.” It is thus clear thatthe lawmakers contemplated that the items mentioned make upthe “actual and necessary expenses” authorized. In other words, that “trtw?l expenses” would include only the items of mileage, lodging, andmeals. To refuse to allow any one of these items would not meet the intention of the Act allowing ‘actual and necessary expenses” upon such out of county trips. The Legislature therefore, we think, used the term “hotel bills” in its then commonly accepted meaning, that is, lodging and meals. Patterson v. Gage, 16Pac. 560, 43 C.J.S. 1134.

A review of the travel allowance provisions of the last several years accentuates this construction.

Inthe general provisions appended to the departmental appropriations bill of the 44th Legislature (Laws of Texas, 44thHon. George H. Sheppard - Page 3 Opinion Ne; V-183

Legislature, 1935*36, p. 1156)Traveling Expenses (e) there is this provision: “AU employees traveling at the expense ofthe State
are hereby limited to the following amounts for meals and lodging; for meals not exceeding $1.80 per day, for lodging not exceeding $2.00 per utght;” Inthe corresponding rider in the departmental appropriation act of the 45th Le ,islature (Laws of Texas, 45th Legislature, 1937-38, p. 1488 (a,), it i,sprovided that “all employ- “
, ees travelin amount,of F :ur Qollars ($4.00) per day expenses for meals and

f atthe expense ef the State are hereby limited to the lodging; * Inthe same connection, we find in the departmental appropriations by the 46th Le$islbPu~e: “All employees traveling at the expense of the State are hereby Limited tothe amount of $4.00 **per** day expenses for meals andlodging;” (Laws of Texas, Vol. 2, 46th Legislature, 1939, g. 228). Corres#endingly, the general departmental appropriations for the 47th fsgislature declared in subdivision (11)sthat “all employees traveling at the expense of the State are hereby limited to the Amount of Four ($4.00) Dollars per day expense for meals and lodging.” FinaLly we find the
same language carried in the general: depertmental appropriation of the 49th Legislature (General and Special Laws of Texas, 49th Legislature, 1946, p. 944 in subdivision@g). Fram this review of the provisions ufthe travel eOrpanse &l#wanCe items, it is obvious the general intention of l&%$tati*XL as to *Rowable items was that
as to the matters of lodging andme&is, the two are identical in meaning as the one item *f hctel bills contained inArticle 6820. We thinkthis conclusion is a pra,per interpretation of the Legislative mind -- andthat is the real meaning af the l’aw.

Frem whatwe have soid it follows that under the terms of Article 6820, Revised Civil Statutes, the District Attorney may be allowed on1 not to excee,d i his actual necessary expenses of lodging and meals,

4.00 for bothper day.
This conclusion in nowi:&eoonf&%cts with this Dcpartment’s ,OpinionNo. 0,i’OQ, which involved statutory exceptions not involved in

### the ~present inquiry.’

The limitation of travel expenses allowed to a Dist’rict Attorney under Article 6620 ofthe Revised Civil Statutes restricts such allowance to $4.00 per day far both lodging andmeals, such construction being implicit inthe words “hotel bills.” 43 C.J.S. 1134.

APPROVED Yours very truly, ATTQRIUEY

BY
OF TEXAS OS:wl3:sl Assistant