OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Xonorablo Julian Xontgoarmy 

State Elghaap En&err 

Austin, Tear 

Dear sir: 

opinion NO. oState Elghvmy 

1po. 427, Aots 

our attention 

rider to Coca 

in.f~ expense8 or ths 

SiOn8.Oi Sellat Bill 

lature, directing 

a provislona OS the 

to trove11llg. exgmses 

, and, therofora,. tbat the 

vorned by tke primisio~ 

hall e&eat a State Hlghxay Eno shall be a oongotezt cloil 

struotlon and mlntananfa, Who ahall 

hold hip position until rczmmd by tka 

Cooloi8ElOIl. Es s!xdl rirst execute a 

bend payable to the State fn sxoh ~SXZI 

as the Cotmisdon my dears neoassary, 

to be upproved by the Cowxission, and 

ooaaitionen upoa the faithful psrr022- 

tXlO8 ot his dutlos. Ee shall aot with 

the Coazn$rsion in an advisory aapeoity, 
Bonorablo Julian Xontgomery, Fagr 8 

wlthout votes nod shall quarterly, annually, and b,lennally 8,Abir.i.to it detailed reports of the progreos of pub110 

road oonstruotlon and statcat of expenditures. Be thall be allowed all 

travell~ ex9enees end other expenses 

therefOr, under the dlreOtiOn OS the depsrtmnt, while aboent from Austin In 

ths perforr=anoe of duty under the dimotion or the Coznl6sI0n.~ 

In 1931, the followI= Aot war passed: 

Vhe traveling and other necessary 

expenses lacurred by the various offIoer6, 

assistants, deputies, olerks and other SEployees in tho vorioua' de9artnents, InstIe 

tutlons, board& oomIsoIons or other oubdivisions oi the State Government, In the 

aotive dieofiarge of their dutlen shall be 

such as are speoifloally fixed end appropriated by tho Le5islstu.m In the general 

approprlatlone bill provIClng for the expensee of the ttl;te CXfvcrment from yem 

to year. iThen appropriations for travel1~ expeensss are mde axky allamxes or 

payr,ents to offiolals or ec9loyees ror 

the use or privately omed autoaobllea 

shall be on e baeis of actual nIleaSe 

traveled for eaoh trip or all trips oovered by the expense aooounts aubtittcd ror 

papnant or allcmmoe fro% su‘ch ap;roprlatlone, and suoh paycent or cllcmnce 

shall be made at a rate not to exceed 

five ('54 omts for each nlle actuelly 

traveled, and no additional er9enre incident to the operation of elch automobile 

shall be ello~mQ.* (Aots 1931, Portyeeoond La@lature, p. 372, Chnpter 218, 

seotion 1, oodified by Vernon's a8 Arti018 01323, in Varnon*.s Suppleclont to the 

Revised Civil Statutes of $925.) 

The rid& aapmbad to Senate Sill No. 427, passed 

by the Forty-sixth Ls~slaturs, oontoins various provision8 

operating as limitations on the uee of funds ap?rogriated 

for traveling expense8, It 18 not necessary for the ?urpoms of thie opinion to r6vfe?t t&We lldtEitlOnS, save In 

the respeots noted below. 
Honorable Julian Montgoosry, Page S 

Seotlon (41, or that portion of the rider relating to trnvallng 4rpens44 pro~Id4s 88 r0il~at 

*Exoept a0 otkwlse ~p90iri05lly 

etmptad, the proolnlona of thlu Act 

shall also apply to dqmrtzient haids 

and menbrrs of CO~EIIS~IO~II.” 

Th4r9 is ao exemption of the State Highway Engineer anywhere to be found In the Appropriations Bill. 

24 think it clear that the laglslatlve Intent is EfdfeSted that the provlsione of ,~the rider relative to traveling 

bxpenaea ehall apply not only to Wats e~9loyees, but also 

to Stat4 ofrIobr8. That thla was ao Intended by the Legislature Is aiad6 clear by the faot thet It found It neoeasary to 8peOlfIoally exempt from the provisions of the Act 

relative to traveling expense8 tso of the ohiaf *ofrIcera~ 

of this State, to-wit, ths Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, in sootion. (g) of ths rider relating to trav4Ung 

ergensoas 

RIt is expreeoly provided that the 

provlslons of this Aot, with referenoe 

to traveling expenses, shall not apply 

to the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor of this State,* 

The a990Iric oxmptioa 0s these two 0rrIcera cf 

our State Covermeat lndloates clearly that It V.BS the 

legialettive belief that, unless such speoltio exezptlon 

was mde, the Governor and the Lieutenant Govmnor, In incurring traveling ex94z1aes, would be limited by the provisions of the rider relative thereto. 

To hold otherwIse wuld ‘be tc say that the La&sleturs Intended that the embers of the zlehway Comleslon, 

while traveling on business of the State, should,be linited 

to $4.00 par day for rneels and lod@&j, but that their subordinate officer, the State fiighway Xnglneer, While travelI- at the expense of the State on State business, should 

not be linited to $4.00 per day; that the heed of the.httommy General*8 Departcmnt, the Attorney General, should, 

while traveling at the expense of the State on State busfneas, b4 lImIted to $4.00 per day for Eeale end lodeInS, 

but that hI4 subordinate offloer, the First AssistEiXt Attorney General, should not be limIted to $4.00 per day; 

that the head of the Department of St&o, the Seoretary of 

State, While tB3Velw Et the 4Xp6lWO Or the Stat.4 011 Stat4 

business should be limited to #4.00 per day for meals and 

lodging, but that hIr subordinate offio4r, the Asalstant 
. 

Honorable Julian Xoatgon;ery, Pago. 4 

Seoretarp of State, should not be (10 limited. Yie do not 

balleos t!mt this was intended by the Le&slaturs, and, 

therefore, our Opinion No. q-1626 is afflmed. 

fn the nemorandum of authorities attached to your 

letter, you ham miaoonatrued Opinion No. o-1426, in ona 

respoot, whemin you etate that Opinion No. 0-1420 reoognlzes that the State Kighwsy -i?lnaar would heve a volld 

claim against ths State of Texas for traveling expenses aotually incurred in exoese of $4.00 per day. Opinion No. 

O-1428 dcee not so reoognlza or imply, for Artlole 6823, 

Vernon’s Supplamnt to the Revloed Cloil Statutes of 1925, 

preoentn the reoogaition ot nny aiah prl?nolple. 

Pourr rely truly 

AlTORiN?ZY OEXXRAL OF TEXAS