September 6, 1950

Hon. J. E. McDonald Opinion No. V-1102 Commissioner ofAg,riculture Austin, T ex a s Re: Legality ofdefraying 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 toSenate 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 ofAgriculture by House Bill 322, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p. 1208. Specifically you ask whether the traveling expenses ofan employee ofthe State Department ofAgriculture can be paid from the $6,000 appropriation made by S.B. 34.

We are verbally informed by the Chief Clerk ofthe Department ofAgriculture that the employee inquestion is a field seed inspector hired under Item 28 ofthe General Appropriation Bill (H.B. 322, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p. 1208).

The Department ofAgriculture section ofGeneral Appropriation Bill contains the following appropriations:
For the years ending August 31, 1950 August 31, 1951
“Out ofSeed Laboratory Fees (Chapter 551, Section 10, H.B. 420, Regular Session ofthe 47th Legislature)

“28. Inspectors, office assistants, assistant seed analysts, none to exceed $2,640 per year
. . . 21,120.oo 21,120.ooHon. 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 onMarch 17, 1950. The caption to such bill declares itto be “An Act making an additional appropriation to the State Department ofAgriculture for the biennium ending August 31, 1951, from the Special Pure Feed Fund and out ofSeed Laboratory Fees.”

The Act specifically provides:

“Section 1. There is hereby appropriated to the State Department ofAgriculture for the biennium ending August 31, 1951, inaddition to the
sums appropriated by House Bill No. 322, Acts 51st Legislature, Regular Session, 1949, to be expended for the purposes set outherein, 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 tomore effectively conduct its work onbehalf ofthe farmers ofthis State creates an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring that bills be read onthree several days ineach House be suspended; and said Rule is hereby suspended, and this Act shall take effect andbe inforce 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 ofthe opinion that the $6,000 granted inSenate Bill 34 is a supplemental appropriation to Item 30. Your request states the Comptroller ofPublicsAccounts is ofthe 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 inthat the language inSenate Bill 34 does not specifically declare whether
or not this 46,000 was a~supplemental grant to Item 30. Where
a statute is susrzeptible ofmore than one construction, resort may be had to the canons of construction if itbecomes necessary to construe or interpret the legislative intent of such ambiguous statute. 39 TexJur. 160, Statutes, Sec. 88.

Itis stated inVolume 39 of Texas Jurisprudence atpage 166that “the intention ofthe Legislature inenacting alaw is. the law itself.” Therefore, the intent ofthe 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 

## 46,000 appropriation. Ifthere is uncertainty
as to how Senate Bill 34 should be construed, all the circumstances surrounding the passage ofthe bill must be considered. The rule is stated inCorpus Juris (Vol. 59, p. 958):

“While the intent ofthe Legislature is to be found primarily inlanguage ofthestatute,where such language is vague, ambiguous, or uncertain, the court may look, not only to language but to the subject matter ofthe act, the object to be accomplished,
or the purpose to be subserved; itmay also look in this connection to the expediency ofthe act, or its occasion and necessity, the remedy provided, the condition ofthe country tobe 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, inconnection 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 innari materia rule of construction, This rule, as stated inCorpus Juris (Vol. 59, p. 1042), requires that “in the construction of aparticular statute, or inthe interpretation of its provisions, all statutes relating to the sameHon. 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 ofthe statutes will be harmonized and effect will be given to all provisions ofeach act ifthey 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 intheir several parts and provisions.’

Inthe General Appropriation Bill the Legislature appropriated 49,000 per year foreach oftwo 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 ofSenate Bill 34 are investigated and determined, andwhen the innari 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 inthe Department ofAgriculture section ofthe 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 ofSenate Bill 34 that the Legislature recognized “that the State Department ofAgriculture urgently needs the funds appropriated herein to more effectively conduct its work onbehalf ofthe farmers ofthis State.”
An examination ofthe file accompanying your request reflects that inJanuary ofthis year you requested the Legislature to grant a supplemental appropriation to the Seed Laboratory Division. Such request stated:

”

. . . additional funds are needed inthe following particular line appropriations ofthe current appropriation bill. B LABORATORY DIVISION

Item No. 28: 

## 43,ooo.oo Item No. 30: 6,408.62 nHon. J. E. McDonald, page 5(v-1102)

You have indicated ~thatthe~comptroller is ofthe opinion that atransfer ofthis $6,000 granted inSenate Bill 34 to Item No. 30would violate Section 2(15)b ofthe 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 ofthe respective items and the same shall not be supplemented from any othe~rsources; 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, incalled session, decided that the prior appropriation in Item 30~wasinadequate 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 inthis Constitution.” Tex. Const. Art. III, Sec. 44.~ The Legislature inits Regular Session in 1949 appropriated $9,000 per year to Item 30 and stated in Section 2(15)b,ofthe General Appropriation Bill that “the same shall not be supplemented from any other sources.* Inthe First Called Session in 1950, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 34 to supplement Item 30with a

## 46,000 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. Ifthis were not true, the Legislature would be without power to effectively deal with anemergency situation wherein the fund granted inthe General Appropriation Bill was determined tobe inadequate and additional funds were urgently needed to allow State employees to efficiently perform their duties. Therefore, itwould be amost unreasonable construction ofSection 2(15)b ofthe General Appropriation Bill to hold that such section prohibited the Comptroller of Public Accounts from transferring the $6,000 appropriated inSenate Bill 34 to Item 30 once ithas been determined that the Legislature intended to so supplement such Item 30when itenacted 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 tobe added to Item 30 ofthe State Department of Agriculture section ofthe General Appropriation Bill (Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p, 1208). Traveling expenses of afield seed inspector hired under Item 28 ofthe Department ofAgriculture section ofthe General Appropriation Bill may be paid from such 

### 46,000supplemental 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:”