Man, gay Isk$Gpatr’Pck* cli(rirman 

Committee on Qtntin 

House of 

51st Legiala~twe 

Au&a, TCNLPS Qpi&on 1Jo. v-772, 
. - 

Hon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 2 (V-772) 

and telegraph expenses, and shaU pay kis other contingent expense& The Committee on Contingent Expenses of the House shall provide rules and regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Resolution. Supply items drawn by the members from the 

House shallbe cbargedtefhe member and paid for 

by him out of the allowance herein provided.” 

In Opinion No, V-84 this office considered the validity 

of a bill submitted by Hon. Claud GiIrner, Chairman. Committee on 

Appropriations of the House of the 50th Legislature, Sec. 1 of which 

we quote: 

*There is hereby appropriated out of sny funds 

in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 

sum of Three Hundred Theueand Dollars ($300.000.00) 

or samuchihareof as maybesiecasspry, to payincidental expenses ,0f the mew&crs of the Regular Session 

of the 50th Legislature, such expenses lint to exceed 

Ten Dollars ($10.00) per day per member.” 

The opinienheld that tke bill was invaIid for the want 

of a preeriating law therefor ~.und.er .Article III, Sectlen 44 0f the Constitution. The opinion further keld tkat the bill was invalid as a pratuity to the individual members as the claims were for personal business 6f the respective members. 

Many ca6es frem other states are set out in Opinion 

No. O-3778 holding that the Texas Legislature could not constitutionally vote its members $50 a month for stenographic and other 

expense between sessions. Kansas, Oregon. and Washington cases 

have invalidated appropriations of $5 per day to each member for 

expenses. Griffith v. Turner, 233 Pac. 510: State v. Clausen, 253 

Pac. 805; Jones v. Hess. 285 Pac. 205. Similarly the Arkansas Supreme Court invalidated an appropriation of $,108 per member for 

expenses while attending an extraordinary session. Ashtan v. Fergusoa. 261 S.W. 624. 

The latest case is that of Scroggie v. Bates, 48 S.E.Zd 

634 (July 1948) by the Supreme Court of Sleuth Carolina. There the 

Legislature voted each member $780 “as official expenses in connection with the 1947 session. . . and work between sessions . . .” 

The court held that: 
Hon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 3 (V-772) 

. 

“ln providing that each member 0 , . shall be 

paid the same amount, that it be paid %s official 

expenses in connection with the 1947 session’ and 

‘work between sessions,’ and finally in providing 

that the amount appropriated may be paid without 

the required itemization’ . , . whan considered together, make the conclusion inevitable without the 

aid of extrinsic facts and circumstances that the 

real intent and purpose of the appropriation . . . 

was to increase the compensation and per diem of 

the members , , , in violation bf the Constitution 

of this State, and the statute is therefore void.” 

In a letter opinion of March 12, 1947, addressed to Hon. 

J. F. Ward, Chairman, Contingent Expense Committee, House of 

Representatives, Austin, in answering a similar question it was said: 

“The Contingent Expense Fund allotment is, of course, made for the 

purpose of meeting those comparatively small items of expense in 

connection with the sitting of the Legislature which are not foreseeatie in kind or quantity, and properly so, in recognition of the fundamental policy that the Legislature must carry on in the discharge of 

its duties. In the nature of things, the allotment may not be resorted 

to except for those items of expenses that have a legitimate and real 

relevancy to the official service being performed. In other words, 

it means that the compensation or payment whatsoever must be for 

something for a public purpose rather than for the personal interest 

of the person paid whether he be an employee or Representative.” 

The language quoted indicated the real purpose of a contingent expense approprizition. This office adheres to the holdings 

above cited, and the principles therein involved, It is well known 

that $10.00 per day is not adequate compensation for members of the 

Legislature, and the per diem should be increased. But to be valid 

it must be done by constitutional amendment rather than by a statutory expense allowance, 

SUMMARY 

The Legislature may not constitutionally increase its per diem by directing the payment to 
Hon. Ray Kirkpatrick, Page 4 (V-772) 

each of its members the lump sum of $lO,OO per day 

for expenses during its regular session. 

Your6 very truly, 

ATTORNEYQZNERALOF TEXAS 

w G& 

Ocie Spew 

AssistaM 

0S:wb:erc 

APPROVED: 

iiiL&&&