Hon. J. E. McDonald Opinion No. v-918. 

Commissioner 

Department of Agriculture Re: Availability of Item 

Austin, Texas 56 of the current appropriations to the 

Department of Agriculture for the payment 

of expenses Incurred 

In the administration 

of the Pink Boll Worm 

Law. (R-B. NO. 322, 

Dear Sir: Acts 51st Leg.) 

Reference Is made to your request for 

Ion, which reads, In part, as follows: 

an opln- 

"We desire the opinion of your office 

as to whether or not this department can 

pay 'other expense&' in the administration 

of Chapter 3, and Title 4, R.C.S. 1925 and 

any amendment known as the Pink Boll Worm 

Law, from Item #56 of H.B. 322, passed by 

the 51st Legislature, which Item reads as 

follows: 'Seasonal salaries, none to exceed 

$200 per month for administration of Chapter 3, Title 4, R.C.SYl925 . . ..$5000.00?' 

"For your information, Item #56, referred to above is the companion appropriation 

to Item #68 of S.B. 391, passed by the 50th 

Legislature which Item reads as follows: 

'Seasonal salaries (none to exceed $190 per 

month each) and other expenses in the admlnlstratlon of Chapter 3, and Title 4, R.C.S., 

1925 and any amendment known as the Pink 

Bollworm Law.' 

"The State Comptroller has presently 

set up this Item#56 In the amount of $5000.- 

00 as Seasonal Salaries only, effective Sept. 

1, 1949. In this connection, if this approprlatlon Is allowed to stand, limited to 
Hon. J. E. McDonald pRge 2 '(V-918) 

- 

salaries only, with no part of the $5000.00 

to pay general or contingent expenses for 

Pink Bollworm control work, then the project Is going to be critically handicapped 

not only from the State's viewpoint but It 

will become a problem of National scope as 

well. 

"It is our Interpretation, that the 

51st Legislature had no Intention of denying this department of the use of these 

funds, by limiting the amount to salaries 

only, when it has been a custom of the department for many years in the past, and 

the several sessions of the Legislature has 

re-appropriated the money from one budget 

to another, leaving It to the discretion of 

the Commissioner as to how much should be 

expended for salaries, and to general expenses in the enforcement of the Pink Bollworm Law. It Is our belief that the entire 

,wordlng for Item #56 should read exactly as 

quoted above from Item 68, and our further 

belief that the 51st Legislature so lntended; but the wording of,thls particular Item 

(Item #56) was erroneously phrased in the 

final draft of the Approprlatlon'blll, either 

clerically or stenographically, as all of 

this wording as It should have been appears 

on Page #lb, (but not in proper sequence) 

mimeographed copy of H.B. #322 which was 

presented on the floor f$r final passage 

by the 51st Legislature. 

Item 68 of the appropriations made to the Department of Agriculture for the biennium ending August 

31, 1949, appropriated $5000.00 for each year of the, 

biennium for the following purposes: 

"Seasonal sslarles and Other Expenses 

In Administration of Chapter 3 and Title 4, 

R.C.S. 1925 and y Amendment known as the 

Pink Bollworm Law. S.B. 391, Acts 50th Leg. 

R.S. 1947, ch. 400, P. 803. 

Item 56 of the appropriations made to the Departmentof Agriculture for the current biennium Is an 

appropriation of $5000.00 for each ear thereof for 

"Seasonal salaries, none to exceed % 200.00 per month for 
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 3 (V-918) 

- 

administration of Chapter 3, Title 4, R.C.S., 1925" H.B. 

322, Acts slat Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 615, p. 1208. 

We quote with approval from Opinion No. O-906, 

written during the administration of Attorney General 

Oerald C. Mann: 

"It is, of course, elementary law 

that money appropriated by the Leglslature cannot be used for any other purpose 

than that specified in the appropriation 

bill without constituting a mls~applicatlon of public funds. 

"Conference opinion, Attorney Qeneral's Department, August 18, 1921, by Honorable E. F. Smith: 

"'It la the law of the State that no 

part of the money appropriated by the Leglslature can be used for any purpose other 

, 

than the specific purpose named In the appropriation bill. An expenditure for a 

purpose other than the one for which the 

money was appropriated would be a misapplication ofpubllc funds. The Comptroller would not be authorized to draw 

his warrant on any fund for any purpose 

except the purpose named ln the Act, and 

the ??reanurer would be without authority 

to henor a warrant on any fund for any 

purpose excapt~that named In the approprlation bfll.' 

"The above opinion quotes from 4 COrpus Jurls 1460, as follows: 

"'An appropriation of funds is an 

authority from the Legislature, given at 

the proper time, and In legal form, to the 

proper officers, to apply sums of money, 

out of that which may be In the treasury 

In a given year, to specified objects or 

demands against the State; the act of the 

Legislature In setting apart or assigning 

to a particular use s certain sum of money 

to be used In the payment of debts or dues 

from the State to Its creditors; a setting 

apart from the public revenue of a certain 
Hon. J. E. McDonald, page 4 (V-918) 

ture 

sum of money for a specified object, ln 

such manner that the executive officers 

of the government are authorized to use 

that mdneg and no more for that object, 

and for no other: (Underscoring ours)." 

It may be, as stated by you, that the Leglslahad no i?tentlon of denying to your Department funds _ to pay traveling and other expenses necessary to enforce 

the provisions of a law so important to the cotton lndustry of this State as the Pink Bollworm Law, and Its fai-lure to provide~for the payment of such expenses may have 

been due to an error or oversight. However, we cannot 

speculate as to what the Legislature may have intended 

or the reason why an appropriation for the payment of 

such expenses was not made. We can, In this instance, 

consider only the plain, unambiguous language found in 

Item 56 to determine its meaning and the purpose for 

which the money aljproprlated therein Is to be expended, 

which is to pay "seasonal salaries" Only. Therefore, It 

necessarily follows that It Is our oplnlon such appropriations may not be lawfully expended for traveling or 

other expenses Incurred in enforcing the provisions of 

the Pink Bollworm Law. 

SUMMARY 

The money appropriated to the Department of Agriculture In Item 56 of the current ap~roprlatlons for tie purpose of 

paying 'seasonal salaries may not be lawfully expended for traveling and other expenses incurred by the Department in the 

enfortenmnt of the Pink Boll~orm IZIW. H.B. 

MO. 

go6. 

322, Act6 516t Leg.; A.G. Opinion No. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED 

ZL 2L.u-d 

ATTORNEYGENBRAL 

BWB:azun:mw 

ATTORNEY GEWWAL OF TEXAS 

BY 

&2X @?s&&q~p 

Bruce W. Bryant 

Assistant