January 24, 1972 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert Opinion No. M- 1044 

Comptroller of Public Accounts 

State Finance Building Re: Authority of the Comptroller 

Austin, Texas 78711 to disburse a lump sum appropriation to the Elm Creek 

Dear Mr. Calvert: Water Control District. 

Your request for an opinion on the above subject matter 

asks whether you have authority to issue a warrant in a lump sum 

of $5,000.00 to the Elm Creek Water Control District pursuant to at 

item of appropriation in the current General Appropriation Act.* 

This item of appropriation appears on page 128 of Article III of the 

Act and reads as follows: 

"There is hereby appropriated $5,000 out 

of the General Revenue Fund for the biennium 

beginning September 1, 1971, for all necessary 

operating expenses in conjunction with the 

operation of the Elm Creek Water Control District." 

The Governor's veto message dated June 20, 1971, reads, in 

its relevant part, as follows: 

"Therefore, by authority granted in me by 

Article IV, Section 14, of~the Texas Constitution, I hereby veto each and all of the items 

appropriated for the fiscal year ending August 

31, 1973 from Senate Bill No. 11, Sixty-Second 

Legislature, Regular Session." (Emphasis added.) 

l S.B. 11, Acts 62nd Leg., R.S. 1971, as amended by S.B. 7, 1st 

C.S., same Leg., 1971. 

-5104- 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (M-1044) 

The item of appropriation to the Elm Creek Water Control 

District is a lump sum appropriation for not only the fiscal year 

beginning September 1, 1971, but also for the fiscal year ending 

August 31, 1973. 

We view the issue presented by your request as follows: 

Did the Governor, by his veto message, intend to veto the entire 

$5,000 item of appropriation for the Elm Creek Water Control District, or only that portion of the item appropriated for the fiscal 

year ending August 31, 19731 

The applicable rule of construction is that "In construing 

the purport of a veto message the same rules of construction that 

govern in construing legislative acts should be applied." Fulmore 

v. Lane, 104 Tex. 499, 509, 140 S.W. 405, 411 (1911). In accordance 

wfthis rule, we are of the opinion that, as stated in his veto 

message, the Governor intended to veto only that portion of the appropriation for the District for the fiscal year ending August 31, 

1973. 

Having arrived at the foregoing premise concerning the intent of the Governor, we now consider whether his veto of a portion 

of a lump sum, two-year appropriation is valid. Clearly, his veto 

would be valid if the appropriation to the District bad been made 

in terms of two separate fiscal year items. Fulmore v. Lane, m. 

This not being the case, however, it is settled that the 

zt:z has no constitutional authority to veto only a portion of 

. Either the entire item must be vetoed, or the entire item 

will stand as it was enacted by the Legislature. As the Supreme 

Court of Texas long ago stated: 

"The executive veto power is to be found 

alone in section 14, article 4, of the Constitution 

of this State. By that section he is authorized to 

disapprove any bill in whole, or if a bill contains 

several items of appropriation, he is authorized to 

object to one or more of such items. Nowhere in the 

Constitution is the authority given the Governor to 

approve In part and disapprove in part a bill.,,,The 

only additional authority to disapproving,a bill in 

whole is that given to object to an item or items 

where a bill contains several items of appropriation. 

It follows conclusively that where the veto power is 

attempted to .be exercised to object to a paragraph 

or portion of a bill other than an item or items, 

or the- language qualifying an appropriation or directing the method of its uses, he exceeds the 

-5105- 
. . 

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (M-1044) 

constitutional authority vested in him, and 

his objection to such paragraph, or portion 

of a bill, or language qualifying an appropriation, or directing the method of its use, becomes 

noneffective. So that we are constrained to hold 

that that portion of the veto message. . . was unauthorized and therefore noneffective, and the 

paragraph so attempted to be stricken out will 

remain as a part of the aoorooriation bill." 

Fulmore v. Lane, 104 Tex.-499; 514, 140 S.W. 

405, 412 1911 . (Emphasis added.) 

Similar situations that have arisen in the courts of our 

sister states have been adjudicated in consonance with our holding 

in this Opinion. Fergus v. Russell, 110 N.E. 130, 146-48 (Ill.Sup. 

1915); Wood v. State Administrative Board, 238 N.W.,16, 18 (Mich.Sup. 

1931); and.State ex rel. Turner v. Iowa Sta& Highway dom'n., 186 

N.W.Zd 141, 151 (Iowa.Sup. 1971). See also, "Disapproval by governor 

of a bill in part or approval with modifications", 35 A.L.R. 600 

(1925), supplemented in 99 A.L.R. 1277 (1935), and the authorities 

cited, therein. 

Under this form of appropriation--a lump sum for the 

biennium--our opinion is that the Legislature intended that the 

District might receive the full lump sum at any time during the 

biennium for which it was appropriated. 

to Article 

The Elm Creek Water Control District was created pursuant 

8280-387, Vernon's Civil Statutes, and you are advised 

that that statute constitutes sufficient preexisting law authorizing 

you to issue a warrant honoring the Legislature's appropriation of 

funds to the District. Attorney General's Opinion No. WW-1188 (1961). 

Inasmuch as the Governor's attempted veto of the portion of 

the appropriation for the District for the fiscal year ending August 

31, 1973 is ineffective and nugatory, you are further advised that 

the entire lump sum appropriation is valid, and that you may issue a 

warrant in a lump sum of $5,000 to the District, rather than requiring 

specific vouchers of requisition from the officers of the District. 

Attorney General's Opinions Nos. MS-88 (1953), M-723 (1970) and 

WW-1188 (1961); Attorney General's Opinion No. WW-187 (1957) is 

distinguishable. 

-5106- 
. , 

lion. Robert S. Calvert, page 4 (M-1044) 

SUMMARY 

The $5,000 item of appropriation to the 

Elm Creek Water Control District for the 

biennium ending August 31, 1973, found at 

page 128 of Article III of the current General 

Appropriation Act (S.B. 11, Acts 62nd Leg., R.S., 

1971, as amended by S.B. 7, 1st C.S., same Leg., 

1971) is valid in its entirety, and the Comptroller 

of Public Accounts has authority to issue a warrant 

in a lump sum of $5,000. 

Pursuant to Section 14 of Article IV of the 

Constitution of Texas, the Governor has no authority to veto a portion of an item of appropriation: 

either the entire item must be vetoed, or none of it. 

An attempted veto of a portion of an item is nugatory 

and of no effect, and the item attempted to be vetoed 

is valid in its entirety. 

ney General of Texas 

Prepared by Austin C. Bray, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

-. 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

Mel Corley 

Arthur Sandlin 

Ralph Rash 

Jack Goodman 

SAW MCDANIEL 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WRITE 

First Assistant 

-5107-