Hon. Penn Jackson, Chairman Opinion No. NW-233 

State Board of Insurance 

Austin, Texas Re: Validity of certain provisions of House Bill. 133, 

the General Appropriations 

Wll for tlie fiscal years 

Dear Mr. Jackson: 

beginning September 1, 1957 

and 19%. 

Your office has requested an Opinion coucernlng the 

validity of a rider in the appropriation bill for the biennium 

beginning September 1, 1957, found Tn Part III on pa{;e 94,requiring the filing of an affidavit to the effect that the minimum qualifications stipulated in the rider for actuaries and new 

or additional examiners have been met. The Comptroller is prohibited from issuing salary warrants to the named employees of 

the Insurance Department unless the affidavit is filed. 

The legal problem presented concerns Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits any bill from 

containing more than one sub,ject. The principles involved are 

thoroughly discussed in Attor;:ey General's Gp,inlon W-96, and it 

is not deemed necessary to discuss them again. 

This quesCion is controlled by the decision in Moore v. 

Sheppard, 144 Tex. 537, 192 S. M.2d 559 (1946). The clerks of 

-Courts of Civil Appeals had been charging fees for unofficial 

and uncertified copies of Court Opinions and retaining the proceeds for their private use. The Legislature by rider in an appropriation bill attempted to require the clerks to deposit all 

fees collected for official or Inofficial Opinions in the General 

"Fund of the Treasury. The Court held that prescribing fees was 

a matter of general legislation and was a sewarate "subiect" within the meaning of Article III, Section 35, so as to be prescribed 

since an approprSation bill could only be concerned with the subject of appropriations. (In Attorney General's OpJ.nion w-96 

a similar rider in the Legislative Budget Board's draft of the 

appropriation act in question was held unconstitutional for the 

reason that prescr;b1ng qualificatfons of the actuaries and examiners is a ma.tter for general legislation which cculd not be 

included in an appropriation act.)- The Moore v. Sheppard rider 

required each employee to file monthly an affidavit showing that 

he had not retained the fees but had deposited them in the State 

Treasury. The rider further stated: 
.., ’ 

. 

; ./ .;, 

Hon. Penn Jackson, page 2 (WW-233) 

"The Comptroller shall not issue a warrant 

in payment of the salary of any such empl.oyee 

for any month unless and until the affidavit required herein has been filed for said previous 

month." 

The rider here in question prohibits the Comptroller 

from issuing salary warrants to the named employees of your office until an affidavit is filed with the Comptroller certifying that such employees have met the minimum qualifications 

therein stipulated. 

The Court in Moore v. Sheppard, supra, stated: 

"There being no statutory duty requiring 

petitioners to furnish uncertified, unofficial 

copies of Opinions of the Courts of Civil Appeals, no statute fixing any fee for such services, and no valid statute requiring that money 

received therefore (sic) be deposited in the State 

Treasury, there is no debt owing by petitioners 

to the State. Since petitioners are not required 

to account to the State Treasurer, under existing 

statutes, for such rece'lpts, they cannot be required to execute an affidavit that such funds 

have been deposited in the State Treasury as a 

condition for the delivery of their monthly salary warrants." 

The rule of Moore v. Sheppard therefore applies with 

equal force to the legislation in question. Accordingly, it is 

unconstitutional. 

SUMMARY 

The rider contained in the appropriation 

bill for the fiscal years beg:inning September 1, 1957 through 1958, Acts 55th Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 385, 
Hon. Penn Jackson, page 3 (w-233) 

beginning a’c 'Part.IZI, page 94, is unconstitutional~iri dbhtravention of Section 

35, Article III df'.the Texas Constitution. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

WALLACE P. FINFROCK 

Assistant 

WPF:pc 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

H. Grady Chandler, Chairman 

C. K. Richards 

John Reeves 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: 

James N. Ludlum