August l-9,1955

Hon. J. Earl Rudder OpinionNo. s-167 Commissioner General Land Office Re: Effect of the amendments to Austin, Texas the Veterans’ Land Act as passed by the Fifty-fourth Legislature on the authority of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to admlnister the Veterans’ Land Dear CommissionerRudder: Program.

Your letter requesting an opinion of this office stated as follows:

“The recent 54th Legislature amended and greatly strengthenedthe Veterans’Land Act when it passed H.B+ 341. The amendmentsplace certain requirementsand duties upon the sellers and the appraisers of the land, provide penalties for a violation of the Act, and make certain other changes affecting the administration of the Veterans’ Land Program.

“Under Article 5421m, the Veterans’ Land Act, the administrativedetails of the Veterans’ Land Program are primarily the duty of the General Land Office and its employees, Because of this, it has been the establishedpractice of the Veterans’ LandBoard almost from its inception that the Commissioner of the General Land Office the Chairman of the Board, shall have the au hority to administer and supervise

t the functioning of the Program. In fact,we can find no indication that the Board as a whole has acted on the administrativedetails of the Pro@;-
ram sinae a very early date, but has acted only
on matters of policy and on those items onwhich the Constitution and Statute require full Board action.

“As the amendments to the Veterans’ Land Act go into effect September 6, 1955,we wouldHon. J. Earl Rudder, page 2 

### (S-167)

like an opinion from your office as to whether these amendmentswill make it necessary to change this established practice

I or may the Commissioner of the General and Office stillbe vested with the authority for administering the Veterans' Land Program?"

The Veterans' Land Board and Veteransl~Land Fund
were createdby the provisions of Section 49b F.Article III of the Texas Constitution, ber 

### '7,1946. adopted at an elec ion onNovemThe first legislative enabling act passed in 1949; It was amended in 

### 195'1, 1953,and just recently in 195‘5, and is codified in the statutes as Article %21m. The purpose,

of the Veterans'Land Program is to provide a method by which Texasveterans of military servicemay purchase land from the State at a low rate of interest,with payments spread over a long period of time.

The constitutionalduties imposed upon the Board
are to issuebonds, and to expend the Veterans'Land Fund, which is createdby the issuance of these bonds, for the purpose of purchasing,land. Sec. 49b, Art. III, Tex.Const. Article 

### 5421mrequires an official resolution by theBoard in only two general situations which are matters relating to the issuance of the bonds (&ecs. 

### 3 and 41, and in matters dealingwith forfeiturewhen the veteran purchaserdefaults in his payments. (Sec. 

### 19). All other references in the Act to "the-Board"relate to procedural and administrative details. The amendmentspassed by the recent 54th Legislature do not add to the requirements for formal action by the Board. The substance of the amendmentsmay be handledby rules and regulations, or in an administrativecapacity.

Section 21 of Article !?+2lm empowers theBoard to make and promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper administration of the Veterans' Land Act; thus, theBoard also acts on matters of policy so as to provide for ,theefficientadministration of the Act.

The first Board meetingwas in the General Land Office on June 

### 13 1949,with HonorableBeauford Jester,. Governor,Honorable PriceDaniel, AttorneyGeneral, andBascom Giles,,Commissionerof the General Land Office, present. Commissioner Gileswas elected as Chairman, and he named hisChief Clerk, Mr. Alvis Vandygriff,as Executive Secretary of the Board, which actlonwas approvedby a majority of the~Board. In the followingmonths the Board adopted a resolutionwhichHon. J. Earl Rudder, page 

### 3 (S-167)

designated the Chief Clerk of the General Land Office to act
as Chairman of the Veterans’ LandBoard in the absence of the Chairman, so that the functions of the Board could go forward without interruption. It is significantthat neither of the other memberswas selectedChairmen in the Commissioner’s absence; the chairmanshipwas left in the General Land ~OffiCfJ.From its very inception,therefore theBoard recognized that the Veterans* Land Program is pr marily a function ! of the General Land Office, and throughout itshistory the Board has acted purely as a policy-makingbody with the admini,;;,;;ion

of the Program being conductedby the Land Commis-

. Such departmental constructionwas basedupon the fact that Article 542lm reflected a legislative intent that the Land Commissioner shouldplay a dominant role in the operation of the Program. Section .25of the Act provides that the Executive Secretaryand Assistant Executive Secretary are to be nominated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and approvedby the Board. This section furtherprovides that all other employees of the Veterans’ Land Board are to be selected by the Commissioner, and by him alone. The Act further states that all employees %hall be deemed to be the employees of the General Land Office” and civil and criminal laws reguIating the conduct and rela ions of the employees of the General t Land Office apply in everymanner to the employees of the Board; all documents and papers pertaining to the Veterans’ Land Program are required to be kept In the General Land Office. Penal provisions apply to documents of the Veterans’ Land Board in the same manner as to documents of the General Land Office. An examination of the Departmental AppropriationBill (Acts 1953, Ch. 

### 81,pp. 240-243; H.B. 140, 54th Leg.), reveals that the appropriation for the Veterans’Land Board is under the broad heading of the “General Land Office,” and its sub-total is added into an item called “Grand Total, General Land Office.” From these facts there is a clear indicationby the Legislature that the Program is to be primarily a General Land Office function.
Thus, from 1949 until December of 195’4, as pointed out in the request, itwas the establishedpractice of the Veterans’ Land Board that the Commissioner of the General Land Officewas authorized to administer the administrativedetails and functions of the Veterans’ Land Act. Then, on February 

### 7 1955,following the resignation of the former Land Commiss1oner and the appointment of the Honorable J. Earl Rudder as his successor, the VeteranstLand Board passed a resolution under its rule-making authoritywhich again placed the responsibility for the operationand functioning of the ProgramHon. J. Earl Rudder, page 4 

### (s-167)

upon the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Matters of policy change, and those constitutfonaland statutory ‘functionsrequiring full Board action were excepted from the authority of the Commissioner of E he Gener,al

Land Office and retainedby the ,Board.

We believe that this was a valid authorization for the,following reasons:

$21m, (1) ,Fromthe language and provisionsof Article

it is apparent that itwas the original intent of the Legislature that the Veterans1 Land Programwas onewhich could be best administeredby the GeneralLand Office;

(2) The~Legislaturewas on notice of the departmental constructionplaced on the Act by theVeterans’ Land. Board,and the Land Commissioner
was carrying out the administra E*and that the Commissioner lve details of thenProgram. The Leg,islature

amended the statute in 

### 1951,1953,and again in 

### 1955,but did not change the general method of operating the Program. In fact, in 

### 1951the Legislaturevalidated all act,ions

theretofore taken by the Board, which would include authorizing the Commissioner to administer the Program; and in 

### 1955the Legislature refused to accept amendments to the Actwhich w~ould

have prevented the Board from au-thorizing the Commissioner to administer thereprogram;



### (3) Those matterswhich have been delegated to the Commissioner are ministerial and adminfstrative in nature.

It is believed that the Legislature originally intended the Veterans’ Land Program to be administeredby the Commissioner of the General Land Office for the‘reasons, as pointed out above, that the Commissionerwas authorized to nominate the Executive Secretaryand Assistant ExecutiveSecretary of theBoard; he, and he alone and fire all other employeeswho mighz was authorized to hire work onVeterans’ Land matters; these employeeswere designatedby the Legislature
as employees of the General Land Office, subject to the same civil and criminal laws regulatingthe conduct and relations of the employees of the General Land Offfce; all the papers, records, and archives of the Board were required to be deposited and .keptin’the General Land Office; and, finally the appropriation for theVeterans’~ Land Board was include A,~ in the appropriation for the General Land Office.

As point,edout above, the only constitutionalduties specifically imposedupon theVeterans’ Land Board are to issue bonds and to expend theVeterans1‘LandFund createdby theHon. J. Earl Rudder; page 5 

### (s-167)

issuance of these bonds for the purpose of purchasing land ;;tF;nsold to veterans. Art. III Sec. 

### 49b,Texas Consti-

. The Veterans’ Land Act c&t. 5421m,V.C.S.), requires a resolutionby the Board only for the issuance of bonds (Sets.

### 3 and 41, and in matters dealingwith forfeiture (Sec. 

### 19). Inno other instancedoes the Act, including the new amendments, action. spell out a requirement for formalBoard

This gives rise to thewell lmown legal doctrine of “expressiounius est exti1usi.o alterius” (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other) to the effect that as speoificresolutions are required in these limited Instances, formalBoard action is thereforenot required in any other instance.

In this respect the statuteunder questiondiffers very materially from Article 5421c-3 ,lishe,s

and sets forth the duties of c V.C.S., which estabhe School LandBoard, composed of the same members as the Veterans’ Land Board. Section 4 of that statute specifically states that “the duties of the School Land Board shallbe to set all dates for the leasing and the sale of surveyed lands, and to determine prices at which any landwhether surveyed or unsurveyed, shallbe leased or sold, and to perform any other duties that may be imposedupon them by law.

. .“j Section 

### 6 of that statute further provides that “the School Land Board shall keep a record of its proceedings to be called itsMinutes which shall include a docket onwhich the secretary shall enter all matters to be consideredby theBoard.

. .‘I; Section 8 specificallyrequires that “the Minutes shall show the fact of acceptance of a bid or the rejection of a bid and the approval of the Minutes will constitute the approval of the act of acceptance or the act of refusal.

. .‘I; Section 10 provides that “all awards or leases shallbe issuedby the Commissioner of the GeneralLand Office in accordancewith the Minutes as approved by the School Land Board”; Section 11 requires that “it shallbe the duty of the School Land Board to advise the Commissioner in all matters submitted to it for SUC: purpose” j and Section 13 gives the authority to the School Land Board to accept or refuse any and all bids. Section 14 provides that all functions,powers, rights, and duties that were vested in the oldBoard of Mineral Development
are transferred to and vested in the School Land Board. The statute creating the Board of Mineral Development provided that no business shouldbe “transactedby theBoard except at
a meeting of suchBoard attendedby two or more members, of which meeting notice to all othermembers shallhave been given inwriting.

. ., and all orders or contractsmade or entered into by saidBoard shall only be authorized at such a meettig.

. . .I1(Art. 5421c, Sec. 

### 9). The Veterans’ Land Board statute,Hon. J. Earl Rudder, page 

### 6 (s-167)

before amendmentby the %th Legislature,, did not even requirethat minutes bekept of meetings of the Board.

Both the statute establishing the School Land, Board and the statute creating the Veterans’ LandBoard authorize theseBoards to meet on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. Perhaps it is because of this fact that
some confusionhas arisen as to whether the Veterans’Land Board ever actuallymet and transacted any business. From
a reading of the School Land Board minutes and from the testimony given by various state officialsbefore investigating committees, It is apparent that the memberswent to the meetings of the School LandBoard and conductedSchool Land Board business. They were therefore available on those days to discuss matters of Veterans’ Land Board policy, and to take action in those instances inwhich the statuterequired them to do so. On numerous occasions they dieddiscuss and transactbusiness relating to the Veterans’ Land Board. However, it is seen from the various affidavits filed with the Veterans1 Land Board that the members, although they were present and on numerous occasionsdid act
on matters of policy never did take any action on thenadmin@trative and minIsterialdetails of the Program. This
was the responsibility of the Commissioner and theBoard proper did not act on these matters. The affidavits do not state that therewas never a meeting of the Veterans’ Land Board, but they state that the members never considered or acted upon these detailedmatters of administration.

It is believed that if the Legislaturehad intended that the Veterans’ LandBoard shouldhave to pass on each application and sale, itwould have specificallyrequired a formal resolution of such action, or that minutes be kept and such action to be entered in the minutes of the Board, in much the samemanner as it did in the statute creating the School Land Board. This it did not do.

Certainly the Legislatureanticipated the great number ot Texas veteranswho would want to participate in the Program. Practical considerations show that the Legislature could not have intended that the Board superintendeverypurchase and sale made under the Act. During the five and onehalf years of the operation of the Veterans’ Land Program,
some 20;OO0 veterans’ applicationshave been filed. As there
are four principal steps involved in the processing of each application, it is apparent that itwould be impossible for the Board to have passed on these more than 80,000 separate items, particularlywhen the Legislature is presumed to have known that two members of the Board, the Governor and theHon. J. Earl Rudder, page 

### 7 (s-167)

AttorneyGeneralcleach serve on many other StateBoards and,,~ commissions in a dition to theheavy duties of their own elective offices.

Thus it is recognized that the Legislature intended thatthe Board members be dependentupon employees of the General Land Office for matters relating to the Program. Such matters include surveying,appraisals of the property, title examination,all paperwork, enforcingBoard rules and regureceiving installmentpayments and, in fact, any and he necessary steps to process or check a veteran’s

.

As the Veterans’ Land Programwas so tied to the General Land Officeby the statute, itnaturally follows that the Veterans’ LandBoard shouldmake the Commissioner of the General Land Office responsible for the administrativedetails of the Program. The statutedoes not prohibit this action and, in fact, Section 21 of theVeterans! Land Act authorizes the Board to make and promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper administrationof the Act. The departmental constructionplaced on the itatute by theBoard shouldbe followed if it is reasonable. tanford

v. Butla 

### 142Tex. 

### 692,181S.W.2d 

### 269 (1944). It is elementary in co&truing statutes that the courts must ascertain and g~iveeffect to the legislative intent, and in determining the intent the courtswill look to the entire Act and not to any one phrase, clause, or article. 

### 615,51 S.W.2d 

### 680 (1932). Popham v. Patterson 121 Tex. It is believed that the Departmental constructionplaced on Article 542lmby the Veterans’ Land Board and the General Land Office appears to be a reasonable construction of the Act. The prior departmental constructionwill be given greatweight, particularlywhere the Legislature has met since the adoption of the departmental construction,and has not changed the statute in this regard. The Legislature could have specifically separatedthe activities of the General Land Office and the Veterans’ LandBoard,
or they could have provided separate facilities and employees for the Board, rather than making the functions of the Veterans* Land Program dependent upon the employees and facilities of the General Land Office. But, on the contrary, the Legislature has amended the Veterans’ Land Act three times since the adoption of this particular departmental constructionand has not altered this procedure or construction. The law presumes that the Legislature knew of the constructionplaced on the Act by the executive departmentadministeringthe Act and ~furtherpresumes that the Legislature intended,by reenac ment E of the Act, that the departmental construction should continue.Hon. J. Earl Rudder, page 

### 8 (S-167)

In addition, the Legislature, in 

### 1951,passed
a statutewhich specificallyvalidated & actions theretofore takenby the Board. This had the effect of ratifying or validating the Board’s action in authorizing the General Land Commissioner to be responsible for the administration of theVeterans’ Land Program. Acts 

### 1951,52nd ch. 

### 324,Sec. 25, p. 550; Dr Land & Cattle Co. 

### @, 68Tex. 

### 526,45 S.W. 864;$??ex.Jur. 461; 73 Cyi.S.

. Particularly persuasive on the matter of legislative intent is the action of the recent 54th Legislature. Several amendments to theVeterans’ Land Actwere offered in the Legislaturewhich would have prohibited the Veterans Land Board from authorizing the Land Commissioner to administer theProgram. The texts of these amendments
were as follows:

1. “No rule or regulation shall ever be promulgatedwhich will result in the delegation of any responsibility or authority away from the members of theBoard who are charged with the operation of the Board.”

2. *‘The

term ‘Board’as used in this Act shallbe construed for the purpose of this Act to mean all the members of theVeterans’ Land Board or a majority of the members thereof.”



### 3* “No veterans’ land transaction shall
ever be validwithout receiving approval of all members of the Board with such approval vote by all members individuallybeing shown in the Minutes of the Board as a permanent record of the Board.”


### 4. “No checks shall ever be issuedby the State Comptroller or any other authorizedState agency in connectionwith or pertainingto Veterans’Land Board transfers or purchases for veteranswithout the Comptroller or other authorized State agencies being furnished certified copies of the Minutes showingvotes of the Board’s approval of such authority for expenditure in connectionwith veterans’ land transactions.”Ron. J. Earl Rudder, page 9 (s-167)

The Lets

islature-refusedto ado t these particular amendments R.B. 

### 341,Acts of the 5’ th Leg., 

### 19551,and thereby 6 endorsed and gave its approval of the administrativeprocedure and departmental constructionadoptedby the Board. Certainly, this is as clear evidenceas possible of the legislative intent relative to this matter.

Finally, the action of the Veterans’ LandBoard In authorizing the General Land Commissioner to be responsible for the operation and functioning of the administrative details of the Veterans’ Land Program isvalid because those matters are purely ministerial and administrative, and may be properly delegated to him by the Board. While it is a well-settled rule of law that a State board or agency may not delegate any of its authoritywhich involves the exercise of discretion, it is equallywell-settled that those matters of a purely mechanical,ministerial,administrative, or executivenature, may be properly delegated by such board or agenoy. ’ p. 370;aTh;oop, Mechem, Public Offices and Officers

Public Officers 

### 5 540.McQuillin D 1 oroorationg’ Sec. 1014?’ p?t82* b7 C J S. 348; AttorneyGeneral’s OpiAionsNos. 015667,Vi974, G&36, and V-286.

An act is none the less ministerialbecause the person performing it may have to satisfyhimself that the state of facts existsunderwhich it is his right and duty to perform the acts. This propositionmay be illustrated by several cases. An officer authorized,upon certain conditions, to issue or revoke licenses to foreign insurance companies enabling them to transactbusinesswithin a State, acts ministerially in issuing or revoking such a license, although he is required, in such case, to ascertain the existence of the facts upon which his authority is founded. State v. Doyle, 40 Wis. 174. The issuing and delivering of
a patent to land, after the right thereto is complete, is a ministerial act. Simmons W ever 101 U.S. 260. County, officers, in bringing a sulk f% thi benefit of the county, and executing an injunctionbond therein act ministerially. @&&&on C untv v Bovd, 64 MO. 179. i District Clerk acted minist~rially’inap&oving a surety on a garnishment bond, even though he did exercise a degree of discretion when he ascertained the solvency of the suretyvbyFFquiry and examination of the county records. Be.nae rstec U., 47 S.W.2d 862 (1932). The act of a city in deleiating authority to a committeeby city ordinanceto lease an opera house was only ministerial, even though the committee could lease “on such terms and conditionsas they may deem expedient”, as this language involves simply those ministerial acts necessary to perform the act of leasing. Citv ofHon. J. Earl Rudder, page 10 

### (s-167)

BLddeford v. Yates, 72 Atl. 

### 335. A cityplaster inspector acted ministerially in passing on applications, even though he had to ascertain that the application conformedtto2~~ requirements of a city ordinance. Hatz v. Linauis N.W. 

### 260 (1927).A city council delegated the powes to a committee to grant or revoke restaurant licen,ses, the test being, “publicwelfare”; the courtheld that thiswas not the delegation of a discretionarypower,but insteadwas only a ministerial act involvinga determinationof facts in accordancewith which the administrationof the ordinance would be administered. N.W.2d 

### 168. Prawdzik v. Citv of GrandRaaiQ 21

The issuance of a liquor licensewas ministirial
c even though “a necessity may exist for the ascertainmen from personal knowledge, or by information, derived from other sources, of’the state of facts on which &he perfgrmsnce of the act becomes a clear and spesificduty Land thid does not operate to convert it into a Ldiscretionary acti.” Grieder v. Tallv 

### 77-A.L.A.422. The exercise of power by a board of arbitraiors to fix valuation of propertywas a tninisterial act. AlliedMortgage Co. v. Gilbert 

### 9 S.E.2d 

### 913. A decisi,onof inspectors or judges of an elec;ion, as tomthe admission of a vote; or of county canvassersas to the result of an election; and the making of returns by election officers; are all ministerial acts. Peoalev. Van Slvck (N.Y.) 297; Peoole v. Pease, 27 N.Y. 45. Thus, whill ~h~“~~w iswell-settled that a discretionaryact may not be delegated, and a.ministerialact may be delegated, as a matter of fact it is often discovered that in applying these principles of law there are many acts held.to be ministerialwhich take in
a certain amount of the element of judgment or discretion.

Those matters of policywhich require discretion and deliberation on the part of the Board memberswere not made the responsibility of the Commissioner,and the full Board still acts on these matters. Those matters onwhich,the Constitution and statute specificallyrequire fullBoard action are also still acted upon by all. members of the Board. It is those administrativeand ministerialdetails in carrying out the purpose of the Veterans’ Land Program,which do not require any exercise of discretion,deliberation, or judgment, that theCommissioner has been authorized to supervise. These acts includeprocessing and checking the veteran’s application to purchase, appraisals, abstract of title, commitmentpapers, platting, ,andthe contract of sale, to see that they meet the requirements of Article 

### 5421~1 and the rules and regulations adopted by theBoard’as policy matters. There are other functions, such as the receipt of installmentpayments and the execution of contracts and deeds, but all of these activities
are purely perfunctoryand require no discretion or deliberation.Hon. J. Earl Rudder, page 11 

### (~4.67)

We believe that the same ruleswill apply to the Act after the addition of the amendments as contained in H.B. 341. As pointed.

out above, the Legislature refused to adopt those, amendmentswhich had as their purpose, restricting the Veterans’Land Board and prohibitinga delegation of the authority for,

administeringthe details of the Program. Gertainly this is an indicationthat the Legislature knew of the procedure adoptedby the Board and that by refusing to adopt these ~amendments, the Legislature indicated that this procedure should cantinue. The Commissionermay be authorized to administer those matters in the amendments that set- fbrth additional administrative steps and details. In those instanceswhere the amendments require a question of policy to be determinedby the Board, the Commissionermay be authorized to administer that policy once it has bee~n determined by the Board. We can find no instance in H.B. 341 tha~trequires additional formal action by the Board in the everyday administration of the Veterans’ Land Program. We are therefore of the opinion that the Commissioner of the General Land Office may stillbe authorized to administer the Veterans’ Land Program.
Perhaps a comparisonbetween the, Veterans’~

Land Board and various other State agencies is in order to show‘, how the Board d,iffers from those agencies ofwhich the statutes require specificaction of the members of the agency, and in those instanceswhere the statutesdo not require specific action by the members of such agencies. We have already pointed out the contrastbetween the Veterans’ LandBoard and the School LandBoard wherein the statute establishingthe School Land Board requires specific action by the School Land Board in numerous,situations,while the Veterans’ Land Board is not.sorequired by statute. Asid.efrom the distinguishing characteristicsand standardsbetween these two Boards as set down by the Legislature and pointed out above the very nature of the transactions involved clearly distingu ish the functions and activities of these twoBoards. The matters relating to the Veterans’ Land Program are such that dictate daily action and adhering to closing and other time schedules in order to furnish service to veteran applicants. On the otherhand, matters concerning school lands are completelydifferent innature, and there isno necessity for daily actions of approval
or disapproval. The sale of relatively small excess acreages, the purchase of unsurveyed school lands, the lease ofttidelands,,and the.considerationof pooling and unltization.agreements are matters that can be handled on a bimonthly docket. These matters are by their very nature such,that canbe taken up and considered in full Board action.Hon. J. Earl Rudder, page 12 

### (s-167)

The oontrastbetween the functions of the Veterans’ LandBoard and the Railroad Commission is broad and apparent. The most obvious distinctionbetween theRailroad Commission and theVeterans’ Land Board is that the former is composed of members selectedto perform full-time duties as Railroad Colhmissioners,

while the members of theVeterans’ Land Board obviously cannotdevote their full time to any single agency of which they may be ex-officiomembers to the exclusion of all other duties imposedupon them by the Constitution and statutes of the State of Texas. Perhaps less obvious but
more basic, is the fact that these matters delegated $0 the Commissioner,wholly unlike the duties of the Railroad Comission; are such that they do not require the degree of discretion deliberation,or judgment exertedby the RailroadCommiss oners. 1

To illustratethis premise, it is important to note that the orders of theRailroad Commission are groundedupon many teahnical considerationswhich are brought to light by public hearings. Often the questionspresented are susceptible to more than one solution;therefore,when an order of the Commission‘isjudicially reviewed, the test is not whether the Commission reached a proper fact conclusion on the basis of conflicting evidence and conflictingtheories,but whether it acted arbitrarily andwithout regard to the facts. As the Cotnmission reaches its decisions on the basis of facts developed at its hearings, this actionnecessarily involves the exercise of deliberationand judgment.

Because of its broad and elaboratepowers over all aspects of transportationand oil and gas production, the Railroad Commissionmust of necessity, maintain a large staff. Its examinershold literally thousands of public hearings each year in order to perform the myriad duties imposedupon the Commissioner. For example, in oil and gas matters the Comissionmust determine from evidencedeveloped at public hearings the nature and extent of underground oil-bearing structures; reservoirpressures; the feasibility of secondary recoveryproms,; repressuringproblemsj efficientdrillingmethodsjmarket demand for oil and gas; questions ofwaste; the protection of correlativerights; and many additional questions.

Its regulation of motor carriers requires the Railroad Commission to determine, among other things,whether the applicant for a permit to operate commerciallyover our highways is financially able to perform the service and is financially responsible;whether the proposed operationwill promote the convenience of the public andwhether it is necessary;whether the applicant’s equipment conforms to established safety standards;Hon. J. Earl Rudder, p~age

### J.3 (s-167)

and whether the highways over which the applicant seeks to operatewill be unduly congested or damagedby the proposed service.
Obviously, these are questions requiring the expert appraisal of a specializedbody and each commissionerhas the benefit of the expert counseland judgment of his colleagues. Each commissionermight rationally entertain a differentview
astowhat decision shouldbe made in a particular case because of his particular technicalbackground as a lawyer, petroleum engineer, etc.

Thus it can be seen that the decisions and rulings of the Railroad Commission are such on which there can exist differences of opinion based on different interpretationsof law and fact--such decisions and rulingswhich require the exercise of discretion and deliberation.

Such is not the casewith the matters to be considered under the Veterans* Land ,Act. In the first place, any Texas veteran is entitled to the benefits of the Act. There is no discretion to refuse an application so long as the applicant has compliedwith the provisions of the Veterans’ Land Act and the rules and regulations of the Board. Next, where
an appraisal is made of the land sought to be purchased, such appraisal is made by an employee of the Land Commissioner. The members of the Board cannotmake a personal inspection of each tract of land requiring appraisal fore, I and they must, thereaccept the judgment of the appra ser, an employee of the General Laud Office, as to the value of the land. The Board must also accept as correct the title opinions of the lawyers employedby the Commissioner to examine titles to the land purchasedby the State. The members of the Board could cot possibly examine allthe abstracts to determine if the employees of the General Laud Office had reached a sound conclusion
as to the status of these titles. Again this is a matter
over which the Board could exerciseno~,d Iscretion. They must accept the judgment of the examining attorneybecause that is the only evidence available.

Following examination of title, the attorneyhas the field notes and the deed checked by Land Office draftsmen, and refers all papers to the Executive Secretarywho, in conjunction with the Land Commissioner, reviews the file and obtains the warrant from the State Comptroller. The warrant and deed to the State are sent to the attorneywho examined the title and he closes the sale and records the deed. The remaining functions are purely perfunctory--thereceipt of installment payments and the executi~on of contracts and deeds to the veteranHon. J. Earl Rudder, page 14 

### (S-167)

by the Chairman of the Board, the Land Commissioner. The performance of these functions likewiserequiresno discre- ‘tionor deliberation on the part of theBoard members.

With other State boards and agencies it is a common practice for their activities to be restricted to policymaking,while a single executive administers the affairs of the Board. suffice: Examples couldbe multiplied,but a few should

The State Board of Public Welfare spends $125 million a year--more than is contained in the entire Veterans’ Land Fund--and the actual spending of the money is an administrative matter entirely in the hands of the Executive Director and his staff.

The nine-man State Game and Fish Commission decides matters of generalpolicy and the aministration of the Department, supervision of Game Wardens, and the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollarsyearly is in the hands of the Executive Secretary.

The administrationand enforcement. of State liquor laws is handled by an Administratorand not by the State Liquor Control Board.

The Texas AeronauticsCommission is a policy-making body, but its program is administeredby its Director.

Therewas a day when the three-man Public Safety Commission passed on every expendituremade by the Department. The Commission now establishes general policieswith the administration of the State’s far-flungpolice system and the expenditure of its funds in the hands of the Director of the Department of Public Safety.

The Hoover Commission’sTask Force on the regulatory agencies stressed the need for further delegation,ofauthority. They recommended that each commissionexploremore fully the possibility of further delegation to its staff of authority to handle routine and preliminarymatters which shouldnot require the specificattention of the Commission as a whole.

In the final analysis, the administrationof government is based on trust. It has to be. There are physical limitations onwhat any one man can do; that’swhy staffs of employees are providedby the Legislature to handle administrative details. In the case of theVeterans’ Land Board, the Land Commissioner is more than an employee. He is a State official.

Hon. J. Earl Rudder,page 15 

### (s-167)

elected by the people, and a member and the Chairman of the Veterans’ Land Board. He is the man authorizedby statute to sign the deeds, to hire and to provide the employees, and to keep all Board records in his office. To him the Veterans’ Land Board has delegated the authority to administer the Program. It is our opinion that such action is valid, because suchwas the intent of the Legislature originally;that the Legislature subsequentlyratified and approved this action; end that those functionswith which he is responsible are purely administrativeand ministerial, and comewithin the general rule that ministerial acts of a Stateboard or agency may be delegated to another.

Further,we are of the opinion that the amendments to the Veterans’ Land Act as contained inH.B. 

### 341do not make it necessary to change this practice and the Veterans’ LandBoard may continue to authorize the Commissioner of the General Land Office to administer the Program.

The amendments to Article 5421m theVeterans’ Land Act, passed by the 54th Legislature,do not make it necessary to change the established practice of administering the Veterans’ Land Program, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office may still be vestedwith the authority for administering the Veterans’ Land Program.

PPROVED:
kiTi, Yours very truly,

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD AttorqeyGeneral r\

‘b&l 8. Bhrney Special Assistant

CEB:wb