c - 

R-386 

Hon. George H.~,Sheppard 

Comptroller of Public Accounts 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. V-1113 

Re: Amount of traveling expcsse which can be allowed to a District Attorney per day. 

Dear Sir: 

Your’ request far an opinion upon the above 

matter is as follows: 

subject 

YThis Department has received a traveling expense account from a certain District Attorney 

claiming reimbursement for expenses incurred 

by him on the 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,otel bills, . . . .’ 

in Article 020 V.R.C.S. limit the reimbursement 

to only feur dollars for both lodging and meals in 

the above instance? Or is the Attorney entitled 

to a reimbursement of the entire $7.501 In this 

connection I ,wish to call your attention your opinion No. O-7072.” 

Article 6820 of the Revised Civil Statutes is as fellows: 

“All district judges and district attorneys 

when engaged in the dis,charge of their official 

eduties.in any county in this State other than the 

county of their residence, shall be allowed their 

actual and necessary expenses while actually engaged in the discharge of such duties, not to exceed four dollars per day for hotel bills, and not 

to exceed four cents a mile when traveling by railroad, and not 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 and necessary postage, telegraph and telephone expenses incurred by them in the actual discharge of their duties. 

Such expenses shall be paid by the State upon the sworn 

and itemized account of each district judge or attorney 

entitled thereto, showing such expenses. In districts 

containing more than one ceunty, such expenses shall 

never exceed in any one year $100.00 for each county 

in the 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 of the distrkt court of the c,ounty in which such 

judge or attorney resides, respectively.” 

‘I, WC assume that the District Attorney whose accounts 

you are auditing was traveling in the discharge of his official duties in a county other. than the 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 and necessary expenses 

while actually in the discharge of their duties when traveling in any 

county other than the county of their residence. It further plainly 

limits the expenses thus allowed to the necessary expenses, and 

places a maximum limitation upon such actual and necessary expenses of $4.00 per day for “hotel bills,” and not to exceed -four 

cents a mile when traveling by railroad” and not to exceed “twenty 

cents a mile when traveling by private conveyance.” It is thus 

clear that the lawmakers contemplated that the items mentioned 

make up the “actual and necessary expenses” authorized. In other 

words, that “trtw?l expenses” would include only the items of mileage, lodging, and meals. 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, 16 Pac. 560, 43 C.J.S. 1134. 

A review of the travel allowance provisions of the last 

several years accentuates this construction. 

In the general provisions appended to the departmental 

appropriations bill of the 44th Legislature (Laws of Texas, 44th 
Hon. 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 of the 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;” In the corresponding rider in the departmental 

appropriation act of the 45th Le ,islature (Laws of Texas, 45th 

Legislature, 1937-38, p. 1488 (a,), “ it i,s provided that “all employ- , 

ees travelin 

amount, of F f :ur Qollars ($4.00) per day expenses for meals and 

at the expense ef the State are hereby limited to the 

lodging; * In the 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 to the amount of $4.00 

per day expenses for meals and lodging;” (Laws of Texas, Vol. 2, 

46th Legislature, 1939, g. 228). Corres#endingly, the general departmental appropriations for the 47th fsgislature declared in 

subdivision (11)s that “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 uf the 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 and me&is, the two are identical in 

meaning as the one item *f hctel bills contained in Article 6820. We 

think this conclusion is a pra,per interpretation of the Legislative 

mind -- and that is the real meaning af the l’aw. 

Frem what we 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 both per day. 

This conclusion in nowi:&e oonf&%cts with this Dcpartment’s ,Opinion No. 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 of the Revised 

Civil Statutes restricts such allowance to $4.00 per 

day far both lodging and meals, such construction being implicit in the words “hotel bills.” 43 C.J.S. 1134. 

APPROVED 

Yours very truly, 

ATTQRIUEY 

BY 

OF TEXAS 

OS: wl3: sl 

Assistant