September 6, 1950 

Hon. J. E. McDonald Opinion No. V-1102 

Commissioner of Ag,riculture 

Austin, T e x a s Re: Legality of defraying 

travel expenses for Seed 

Laboratory work from 

funds appropriated by 

Senate Bill 34, Acts 5Ist 

Leg., 1st C.S. 1950. 

Dear Sir: 

Your request for an opinion relates to Senate Bill 34, 

Acts 51st Leg., 1st C.S. 1950, ch. 31, p. 95, which contains an 

appropriation of $6,000 as an addition to the sums appropriated 

to the State Department of Agriculture by House Bill 322, Acts 

51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p. 1208. Specifically you ask whether the traveling expenses of an employee of the State Department 

of Agriculture can be paid from the $6,000 appropriation made 

by S.B. 34. 

We are verbally informed by the Chief Clerk of the Department of Agriculture that the employee in question is a field 

seed inspector hired under Item 28 of the General Appropriation 

Bill (H.B. 322, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p. 1208). 

The Department of Agriculture section of General Appropriation Bill contains the following appropriations: 

For the years ending 

August 31, 1950 August 31, 1951 

“Out of Seed Laboratory Fees 

(Chapter 551, Section 10, H.B. 

420, Regular Session of the 

47th Legislature) 

“28. Inspectors, office assistants, 

assistant seed analysts, none to 

exceed $2,640 per year . . . 21,120.oo 21,120.oo 
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 2 (V-1102) 

” 

. . . 

“30. Postage, printing, repairs, 

equipment, supplies, traveling 

expense,salaries, and contingent . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,ooo.oo 9,000.00” 

Senate Bill 34 was subsequently enacted on March 17, 

1950. The caption to such bill declares it to be “An Act making an additional appropriation to the State Department of Agriculture for the biennium ending August 31, 1951, from the Special 

Pure Feed Fund and out of Seed Laboratory Fees.” 

The Act specifically provides: 

“Section 1. There is hereby appropriated to 

the State Department of Agriculture for the biennium ending August 31, 1951, in addition to the 

sums appropriated by House Bill No. 322, Acts 

51st Legislature, Regular Session, 1949, to be 

expended for the purposes set out herein, the 

sums herein specified or so much thereof as 

may be necessary. 

” 

. . . 

“OUT OF SEED LABORATORY FEES: To / 

pay inspectors, office assistants, assistant seed 

analysts, Seed Laboratory Division, none to exceed Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty ($2,640.00) 

Dollars per year, the sum of Three Thousand 

($3.000.00) Dollars; and to pay postage, printing, 

repairs, equipment, supplies, traveling expenses, 

salaries, and contingent, the sum of Six Thousand 

(46,OOO.OO) Dollars. 

“Sec. 2. The fact that the State Department of 

Agriculture urgently needs the funds appropriated 

herein to more effectively conduct its work on behalf of the farmers of this State creates an emergency 

and an imperative public necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring that bills be read on three several days in each House be suspended; and said Rule 

is hereby suspended, and this Act shall take effect 

and be in force from and after its passage, and it is 

so enacted.” 
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 3 (V-1102) 

The problem is one of statutory construction. Your department is of the opinion that the $6,000 granted in Senate Bill 

34 is a supplemental appropriation to Item 30. Your request 

states the Comptroller of Publics Accounts is of the opinion that 

such $6,000 can only pay expenses incurred by personnel whose 

salaries are paid from the Senate Bill 34 appropriation. This 

difference of interpretation indicates an ambiguity in that the 

language in Senate Bill 34 does not specifically declare whether 

or not this 46,000 was a~ supplemental grant to Item 30. Where 

a statute is susrzeptible of more than one construction, resort 

may be had to the canons of construction if it becomes necessary 

to construe or interpret the legislative intent of such ambiguous 

statute. 39 TexJur. 160, Statutes, Sec. 88. 

It is stated in Volume 39 of Texas Jurisprudence at page 

166 that “the intention of the Legislature in enacting a law is. 

the law itself.” Therefore, the intent of the Legislature must 

be ascertained; that is, just what the Legislature intended Senate 

Bill 34 to accomplish and how it intended that the Department of 

Agriculture use this 4 6,000 appropriation. If there is uncertainty 

as to how Senate Bill 34 should be construed, all the circumstances 

surrounding the passage of the bill must be considered. The rule 

is stated in Corpus Juris (Vol. 59, p. 958): 

“While the intent of the Legislature is to be 

found primarily in language of the statute,where such 

language is vague, ambiguous, or uncertain, the 

court may look, not only to language but to the subject matter of the act, the object to be accomplished, 

or the purpose to be subserved; it may also look in 

this connection to the expediency of the act, or its 

occasion and necessity, the remedy provided, the 

condition of the country to be affected by the act, the 

consequences following upon its enactment, or various 

extrinsic matters which throw some light on the legislative intent. Logic and sound economic principles 

may serve as a guide to the legislative intent.” 

Also, in connection with determining the legislative intent 

of Senate Bill 34, it is important to note that such bill and the 

General Appropriation Bill are in relation to the same subject matter and are, therefore, governed by the in nari materia rule of construction, This rule, as stated in Corpus Juris (Vol. 59, p. 1042), 

requires that “in the construction of a particular statute, or in the 

interpretation of its provisions, all statutes relating to the same 
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 4 (V-1102) 

subject, or having the same general purpose, should~be read 

in connection with it, as.together constituting one law, although 

they were enacted at different times.” TexasJurisprudence 

(Vol. 39, p. 253) states that the rule is applied so that any conflict between the provisions of the statutes will be harmonized 

and effect will be given to all provisions of each act if they can 

be made to stand together and have concurrent efficacy and 

declares that such rule “proceeds upon the supposition that 

several statutes relating to one subject are governed by one 

spirit and policy, and are intended to be consistent and harmonious in their several parts and provisions.’ 

In the General Appropriation Bill the Legislature appropriated 49,000 per year for each of two years, one ending 

August 31, 1950, the second ending August 31, 1951, such fund to 

be used by the persons employed under Item 28 to pay for “postage, printing, repairs, equipment, supplies, traveling expense, 

salaries, and contingent.” When the events and reasons causing 

the passage of Senate Bill 34 are investigated and determined, 

and when the in nari materia rule of construction is applied, it 

would appear that the Legislature intended that this 46,000 appropriation was to be a supplemental appropriation to Item No. 

30 in the Department of Agriculture section of the General Appropriation Bill and that such $6,000 was to be used by those 

persons employed under Item 28 for traveling expenses, postage, 

printing, etc. It is apparent from the emergency clause of Senate 

Bill 34 that the Legislature recognized “that the State Department 

of Agriculture urgently needs the funds appropriated herein to 

more effectively conduct its work on behalf of the farmers of this 

State.” 

An examination of the file accompanying your request 

reflects that in January of this year you requested the Legislature to grant a supplemental appropriation to the Seed Laboratory 

Division. Such request stated: 

” 

. . . additional funds are needed in the following 

particular line appropriations of the current appropriation bill. 

B LABORATORY DIVISION 

Item No. 28: 4 3,ooo.oo 

Item No. 30: 6,408.62 n 
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 5 (v-1102) 

You have indicated ~that the~comptroller is of the opinion that a transfer of this $6,000 granted in Senate Bill 34 to 

Item No. 30 would violate Section 2(15)b of the General Appropriation Bill, whioh provides: 

“The appropriations ,herein provided are to be 

construed as the maximum sums to be appropriated 

to and for the several purposes named herein,’ and : 

the amounts are intended to cover; and’shall cover 

the entire cost of the respective items and the same 

shall not be supplemented from any othe~r sources; 

I 

. . . 

As noted above, the most reasonable construction of 

Senate Bill 34 is that the 46,000 appropriated therein was to 

supplement Item No. 30; that is, the Legislature, in called session, decided that the prior appropriation in Item 30 ~was inadequate and allotted $6,000 to this fund. The ,Legislature has the 

sole constitutional power to “provide by law for the compensation 

of all officers, servants, agents and,public contractors, not provided for in this Constitution.” Tex. Const. Art. III, Sec. 44.~ The 

Legislature in its Regular Session in 1949 appropriated $9,000 

per year to Item 30 and stated in Section 2(15)b, of the General 

Appropriation Bill that “the same shall not be supplemented from 

any other sources.* In the First Called Session in 1950, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 34 to supplement Item 30 with a 4 6,000 

appropriation. This body is the sole constitutionally empowered 

authority to do such and it could by any subsequent statute either 

increase or entirely abolish the prior appropriation. If this were 

not true, the Legislature would be without power to effectively deal 

with an emergency situation wherein the fund granted in the General 

Appropriation Bill was determined to be inadequate and additional 

funds were urgently needed to allow State employees to efficiently 

perform their duties. Therefore, it would be a most unreasonable 

construction of Section 2(15)b of the General Appropriation Bill to 

hold that such section prohibited the Comptroller of Public Accounts 

from transferring the $6,000 appropriated in Senate Bill 34 to Item 

30 once it has been determined that the Legislature intended to so 

supplement such Item 30 when it enacted Senate Bill 34. 
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 6 (V-1102) 

SUMMARY 

Senate Bill 34, Acts 51st Leg., 1st C.S. 1950, ch. 

31, p. 95, contains a 46,000 supplemental appropriation to be added to Item 30 of the State Department of 

Agriculture section of the General Appropriation Bill 

(Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p, 1208). Traveling expenses of a field seed inspector hired under Item 

28 of the Department of Agriculture section of the 

General Appropriation Bill may be paid from such 

4 6,000 supplemental appropriation. 

Very truly yours, 

APPROVED: 

Willis E. Gresham 

Antitrust Division 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General. 

Everett Hutchinson 

Executive Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

Walton S. Roberts 

Assistant 

WSR:”