OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable M. a. nor&an, cha1rzlm 

Approprlat ions Coomtttee 

aouae of Reprerrentatlves 

AIM tin, Texas 

You have eubmitt oaslderatfm tlouse 

ii111 30. 157 by C opriatioa of $1,057.7L3 

to pay par diem a curred by the alar 

neenbers 02 the la attending board 

meeting8 held 1 of July and hu&ust, 

tar that the regular 

approprlatiow 

ion U88 obtained by the board 

ur requeat that some doubt exists 

e, or some of the members thareof, 

ure can legally u&e this approprlatio!b 

h&her there is any conrtltutlooal provlapproprlatloa. 

reads aa follows: 

“The members of the State Board Of Educatloa, created by this Act, aball be paid ‘Pea Mllars per day vheo In actual attaadaace upon Board 
IiOuOrable M. 8. Morgan, page 2 

tbeetlngs, aud shall be eatitled to actual traveling aud other necessary expenaee incurred f.u 

the discharge of their duties. Each member shall 

take ,the coastltutlonal oath of office.* 

Article III, seotloo 44, of t&e Coustitutloa of Texas, 

provides, la partr 

*The Leglalature . . . shall not . . . graot 

b y l pproplatioua or otherwise, any ausouut of 

moaeJ out of the Treaaurp of the Ytate to cay 

lndlvldual, on a clelm, real or pretended, vheu 

the aame &all not have baea prorlded for by preexisting law. . . .* 

The Suprerae Cwwt OS TeXad, la Fort Worth Cavalry 

Club v. Sheppard, 83 S. Y. (24) 660, said; 

‘It, is asttled aa the lav of this 3tate that 

uuder the piovlslons of section 44 of article 3 

of our State Couatltutlon, the Legislature la 

prohibited from epproprlatlq state aoaey to my 

~lrrdlvldual~ on any claim, unlees, at the very 

time the approprlatlon 1s made, there la already 

in Porte scam pre-exlatlng valid law couatitutlug the claim the appropriatlou 1s rrmde to pay a 

legal and valid obligation against the atate. 

Pinally, It 1s settled that br legal obi$a;loo ts meant such an obligation as vould 

form the bash of a Judgment against the lrtate 

iu a court of competent jurisdiction, lo the event 

the Leglrlature should permit it to be sued.” 

Auatlo Hat ional Bank v. Sheppard (Tea. Coa. App. 

oplaioa adopts@ by Suprsme court), l23 Tex. 272, 

71 5. U. (2d) 242; Austlu gatlonsl Bank v. SbepCorn. App. opimion adopted b 

123 Tex. 2b0, 71 3. Y. (2d) 24 iI 

Supreme 

Cottou’bkills Y. 3heppard (Tex. Cola, 

1 CorSiC8M 

App, 0,pialon 

ado ted by Supreae 

(2dp 247; llchols v 

Court), 123 Tex. 352, 71 3. Ii. 

. Ytate 11 Tex. Civ; Ppp. 327, 

32 Y. Y. 452 (urlt refusedjj State v. Alderman 

(Tex. clv. ~pp.) 163 9. Y. 1020 (vrlt refused); 

Sate Y. Wlleon, 71 Tex. 291, 9 3. Y. 155. 
. ’ 

. _ 

BoQorable n. B. Morgan, page 3 

Ia view of the f oregolag authmltles, tt is our 

oplalon that Article 2675b-10 la a pre-existing law wlthln 

the meaning of Article III, Sectioo 44, of the Constitution, 

and that fiouse Bill No. 157 does not contravene said sectloa. 

We have also considered said Bill in c.anectl.on 

vlth Article III, Section $9, of the Coostltutlon, vhlch lnhlblts the creatSoa of a debt, except for certain stated purposes, and it 18 our oplnloa that the expeadltures herein lnrolved did not create a “debt” agafnst the State of Texas 

ulthln the meanlog of that term as used la the Constitution. 

You are further advised that we irnov of uo constltutloaal provlsloo uhlch would pevent the Legislature from 

lawfully making the contenplated approprlatlon provided for 

ia aouse Bill Ho. 157. The fact. that uo deficiency authorlzatlon was obtained from the Goveruor as provided for la Article 4351, Veroon’s Annotated Civil jtatutes, Is lmmterlal, 

alms Article 2675b-10 a~uthorlted the members of ths Board to 

incur the expeasea aad obligates the State to pay the sam as 

well a8 their per diem. 

Ye are eaclosl.ng herewith aouse Bill Ho. 157 and 

Judge k‘atklns’ letter. 

‘Prustfng that ve have satisfactorily ansrered your 

inquiry, ve are 

Yours very truly 

ATT~FWEI GENEBAL OF TE;XPS 

. .~./ 

.- 

.I 

_.. .d 

JCD:db 

Enclo8ures 

BY 

. C. Davis, Jr. 

Assisiant