OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

uay 17, 1939 
II0n . 3. J. Dartez, Lay 17, 1939, Page 2 

23 of this Act provides a registration fee of &lO.OO, and Section 20 

thereof providns (I renowal fee of i2.50 payable annually on or before 

the’firot day of ?:over.bcr. Lection 27 of the Texas harbor Law 

crates the *8tate Board of Barber Examiners’ sund,v with the followlan .-uag e : 

I 

. The secretary ahall keep a record of’ all proceedln&*of the Board and shall be the custodian of all 

such records and shall receive aad receipt for all money 

collected by the Board. All money so received shall be 

immediately deposited with the [atate Treasurer, v.ho shall 

credit same to a special fund to be as ‘state Board of 3arber ixanin?rs Fund,’ which money shall be drawn from said 

special fund upon claims made therefor by the aoard to tho 

Coffiptroller; and if found correct, to be approvod by him 

and vouchers issued therefor, and countersigned nnd peid.by 

the State Treasury, -.hlch special fund is hereby appropriated 

for the-purpose of carrying out all the provisions of this 

Act. That al:nually at the close of business on ::uqst 31 

of each year a cor;plete report of tho buslnzes transaction 

by the Board showing all receipts and disburs-ments skull 

be made by the aoard to tho Governor of the Ltate of Texas. ” 

. . 

Unlike rest of our statutory special Funds, the balance of 

funds tLr_rein at the end of the clven fiscal year, cvPr and above 

sdrinistrative expenses, does not pass into the Cencrsl Fund, b;lt 

rerains In the Ltate Board of’ barber ::xaminers’ E’und to accumulate 

fro- year to year a~contlnulng fund subject to biennial approprlations. But in answering your inquiries, we Lusti look to the last 

biecnial daportzcntnl appropriation bill, rather than to this 

blanket appropriation mtida by Section 27, Article 734a, ?enal Code, 

of al; moneys in the .;tatc ljoard of tiarbcr : xcn?inersl Zund for the 

purpose or carrying cut the provisions OP the Texns %rbzr Low, 

because the operation of the latter enactment, as m appropriation 

masure, 1s linltcd, by Article 8, Tection 6, Constl:ution of ‘iaxes, 

to two years from the date of its enactment in lS2S. 

?~cnate Bill !:o. 138, Chapter 504, Act? i.egular Zession, 

45th i.cgisl?turs, being the dopnrtzcntal appro?rintiGn bill for the 

years ending ;A.ul:ust 31, 1038, and Anust 31, 1’:3S, pr0vidi.s for the 

State Board of Zarbcr . xamluers, a budgeted appropriation fcr 

salaries and r~lctanance expenses in the total sun of ,62,420.00 

for each of ebld years, and provides additionally as follows: 
753 

B4@pmi4 ..Y ,. . 

Ron, X. J. Cartez, Pay 17, 1939,. Page 3 

“The foregoing amount8 for the &ate hoard of Barber 

I,xamlners arci hereby ,approprlated out of the Ltate Board 

of Barber z.xamlners aund, composed of any b~lanceo on hand 

at the end of any preceding fiscal’ year and sny fees and 

other receipts collected by soid board and deposited in 

said fUIId during and for each of the fiscal yc,:ars ending 

August 31, 1938, and Au:~uot 31, 1939, less transfers to 

the Ganeral Fund as provided by Statute and/or this appropriation Act. There Is appropriated and ordered transferred ~Z.ighteen Hundred Ge;enty-five Doll&r8 por year 

from the State board of Barber ~xaminc~rs Fund tci tbe 

General Revenue Fund for the purpose or paying the cost 

oi governmental scrviccs rendered to @aid Board by the 

Stata Departments supported by the General Fund.” 

Answering your second question first, it is our opinion 

that same should receive a negative answer. k ruling by this 

Department that the State Board of zarber Lxamlnors could Issue 

vouchers whereon warrants could lawtully issue, to cover salaries 

and admlnlotretive expenses l~ncurred during the fiscal year ending 

August 31, 1939, but to be paid from moneys coming into ‘the state 

Board of Barber Examiners * zaa from annual renewal fees after the 

termination of such flsoal year and during the succeeding flsc3l 

year, would be tantamount to saying that the above cited dnportnental 

appropriation bill should be effective for a lonqcr term than two 

years, in contravention 0T Article 8, jectlon 6, Constitution of 

‘i’exas, providing, in part, that no appropriation OS money shall ts 

made for a longer term than two years. 

In addition to this constitutional inhibition, he have 

Article 12, Hevised Civil Statutes, providing, in part, that “the 

fiscal year of the State shall termioate on the 3let day of Aupust 

OS each year and appropriations of the utate Government shall conform thereto.” 

Boreover, we have the express language of tbc above cited 

departmental appropriation b111, providing, in connection u,ith the 

budget for the t‘tate Board of Sarbcr Lxaniners, that the ar,.ounts so 

specifically ltezized are appropriated out of the state Board of Berber txaniners’ irund, “cox>csed of any balnncea on hand at the end of 

any preceding fiscal year and any fees and other receipts collected 

by said board end deposfted in said fund during and for each of the 

fiscal years ending iiup;ust 31, 1938, aud ;iuEust 31, 1939 ,‘I etc. 

!:anifeotly, annual renewal fees poyuble :Lvcmber 1, 1939, and ollocatcd -t,o’t,he State Board of Darbcr Examiners’ <and after Xu{:uZt :jl, 

1939, u.ould not be v.ithln the foreg;lng appropriation, so as to be 

subject to warrants dravin pursuant to said appropriation for the 

bieanlux ending hugust 31, 193Q. 

f 
eon; tZ. J. Daitez, Kay 17, 1939, Page 4 

Our negetive answer to your second question also finds 

support ln former-oulnions of this Department, one of v.hlch 1s a 

letter o.>lnion of dtii.8 December 16, 1931, written by ilon. Elbert 

Looper, th;.n Assistant Attorney General, end direoted to iion. C. v. 

~2crral1, Chalnaan, Lailroad Commission of ‘Texas. 

‘By your first question you ask If the L;tate Board of Darbar Xramlners oan operate Flthout requesting any aarrants to be 

issued against the Ztote Board of Liarbcr .kxemlnersQ r*lmd until such 

time as there shall have bosn aolloated sufficient revenue to take 

care of cutstandlng obl$gatlons, and this mii:ht Cuirly be Interpreted 

as a general statement OS your second question, and embraaed Eithln 

its mope. Eowever, assuming thst you xean to inquire If the Board 

may lawfully incur oblicatlons during a certain fiscal year, and 

issue harrants th.:refor against future revenuee r.hlch it is anticlpated will come into the State Board of Earber i.xaeiners’ i+‘und 

during that f iscel year, we answer such question affirmatively. 

The case of Perguson, et al v. Johnson, et al, 67 S. F. 

(Zd) 372, is authority for the proposition that obligations wq be 

incurred and liabilities contracted for during any fiscal year by 

boards and commissions oven though Sunds to. pay warrants drawn in 

payment thereof are not at the time actual1 in the sp:?cial fund ln 

question, but It is reasonably antic ~~~t~~~~s~~~~~~~e~~:~nues 

sufficient to ceet such obligat=; w 

funds during the same fiscal year. 3ut as ne reed this case, it 

does not m::!en to sapthat- or com?Qission ceri enticlpate prospeatlve revenues for the succeeding flocnl year or nny other fi5ot31 

year, except the one during which the obllgotlons and expenses were 

incurred, and our answer to your first question is so limited. 

Yours very truly 

PbX:N 

hPPRO’iF?D 

ATTOiCXNEY GC:;.RAL 07 l25XA.S 

BY 

. .