- . 

y euuaQ.ylln OFFICE OF ME AITORNEY GENERAL OF TQcA$ 

-- AUSTIN 

. 

. 

c 

Konorabk b'alter C. Kooblard, Chairmn 

mira of fnouranoe Oomlssi~nors 

Austin, Texas 

Dear sir: 

. . 

contenplated action by t*hB Idsthe exnninaticn conducted In Texas end the ragulramsnt md~ tf the Prnotoricnn bnsod on the omminatioz:)., 

Detsilo in connection with the cxoidnstion and tho 

roquircsants vii11 nacoesarilg be diucueoed in the 

hearin:: end more intolli{;ently explained by reproscntetlve of this Depertmnt.V' 

. 

. 
Ronorabls i&&r C. Woodward, Page 2 7 

l 

Eith reference to whether or not the proposed trip 

of l&r. Barrow constitutes State buSines6 you state: 

-The action tG be taken by ;lissouri or any other 

.. state naturally affects the existonce of the Order 

and may result in dama&ine it to such an extcnt'that 

it cannot operate in Texao. It,is important from the 

standpoint of the State of Texas that the action taken 

by us be ruuy explainsa and Understood. It is our 

..view that this aotion really plaoes the Order on a 

nuoh sounder basis than it waS prior to'the exemination;~ 

that its ability to meet its contractual obligaticns is 

. increased. It appeara to us to be to the intereet Gf 

the State of Texa~a to explain to the officials of 

another state this action we have taken to improve the 

Order's condition but'whichthe other steto evidently 

dGaS AOt Understand and UpGn Which it proposes t0 cancal the Prnetorians' license.* 

. 

I%'16 our opinion that tiie interest of the State of 

Texas iA the aOtiGA Of the ZfiSSGUri InSUMnOS iBpSrtm& relating to tho Praet.ori.&nS as net out in the preceding paragraph qUGtdi from your letter in no t 80 direct es to constitute 

State bupiness v?ithin the meaning Gf the follov:ing provision 

Oontained in the rider to the departments1 aPprO?riatiOn bill, 

being senate 9111 427, hctc. 46th LC&lStjrO: 

Wo traveling expenses shall bk incurred by any 

onployoe of any of the depurtmenta, or other s@?nciea 

of the govorDment, outSide of the boundaries of the 

Stat0 Of Texas, exoept for Stat0 ~UCiI?3Sa dirOCt.~y 

ccncarning hio ovm department Gr agency aAd no suoh 

expenses 6hnll be paid frocl State appropriationsor 

out Gf any looal or auxilliary funds by tho State 

Oomptrollcr to any employee of any agency of the ~overnment, until and unless a 'wjrittcn statement, oi2ned 

by tho Attorney <;enoral, advisird that the purpose 

of.the proposed trip, in his opinion, is for said 

State businesc purposes, , . . .*I 

While it is true that the action of the lliesouri In6urance Cepsrtment moy ~indirectly nffcot the status and rel- 

;aAr;,;zsthe Pvastorians, a fraternal benefit society cherteyod 

170 do AGt bolieVo that this interest is any &rester 

than is &we iu tho caSe of ony action by a fqroign stnte 

against a Texas corporation Or association. 

, 

. 
i i. . 

.- 

Honorable Xalter C. Y;oodrard, Psga 3 - 

. 

Nor do we regard it a6 m6terial. tbat the expfJnSe6 

of the proposed trip by L!r. Barrow may eventually be mid by 

the Fraetorians by way of acsessnent against thst comp+~ny. 

The money for the payment of Xr. Barrox treveling exg8nses 

would of necessity be nsde out of an appropriation to the Insuranoe Department of this State, end the fact that sC3.d appropriation might thereatter be supplemented to the extent of 

such eqahsea by an assessment agasinst the Fraetorians does 

not deprive the monies paid out by the Comptroller a?ld Treaeuror oi' their character as State funao. 

Acqordingly, we are ootlpelled to reaffirm our letter 

to you of October 9th wherein we otated thnt in our opinion 

the proposed trip of Mr. Eiarrow did not constitute Sto.te busincss a5 defined in the departmental apptiopriation bill. 

Yours very truly 

A’PTOMEY G3E&, OP TEXAS 

YiRQ?BB 

. 

. 

.