OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Bert Ford, Adnlinicitrator 

Texas Liquor Control Fmclrd 

Austin, Texas 

Demr Sirs 

We are pleased to 

o inion front this departaont. 

t K e question which you have p 

are therefore taking the 1 

rollers1 

nt s ter upon 

vbe ComptrolL8r ei Publba ;reeounts haa 

raised the question a$ to whether OF not the 

phraseology or this seotlon does in faot provide a epealfia appropriation to the Tazae 
Liquor Control Board for the purposes speOlfle& 

in tha aeatlon. 

We aan recall mfm appropriations heretofore 

made under provisions 6 Ll lar to those oontained 

in this Aot, for which reason it was not antiaipate4 that any question mu14 arise with respeot 

to this matter, Aoting under that assuaaptlon, 

e6mmltmentcr have alre@dJr been medo an4 the number 

of auditor8 pmlded have already been employed. 

We have aleo arranged Sor and had printed the 

preaOr%ptiOn t8x St&Apt3 and htiY8 iWUrr86 other 

expenoaa under this Aot. For these raaeons It 

1s tiportant that we know as q~ulakly a6 possible 

whether a' vali.4 appropriation has been lpade and 

mwld appreaiate your adyiafng this oftiae and 

that of the Comptroller of Publie Aooounts a6 

quiotiy au pe66ible.r 

The termiaolo 

mull8 Blll 8 "b8iOY8 al f 

f ln Beetion 3 0s Artiale Ix or 

OOation of Sunds darlyad irclll the 

pesorlptlon staap tax herein levied* refers to Seation 8 

of Artiale IX whldh reads Wmd8 derlred from the preaeriptlon stanp tax herein levied shall be allooated a6 hereinafter provided in this Aat.* Thla in turn refrra to Artlole 

X of Bouse Bill 8 which alloaates the funds In part to'ths 

Available Sohool Fund an4 in part to a RalaaranOe fund in 

the Treasury".. 

The nmmlfeat purpom of the Legislature in SoOtiOn 

3 was to appropriate "maoh fwid6 a6 may be nooesearJI(( SOP the 

a4dltlonal and requlslte admlnl6tratlon whioh would baaome 

waeewry. 

We must therefore determine It seotlon 3 or Artiole 

IX O? Eouee Bill 8 oonstltutee a euttiolant and valid appropriation in the light of Se&ion 6 of Artlola VIII of the 

Constitution of Texas whloh read6 aa foll.awsI 

"No money shall be drawn ?rom the Treaasuxg 

but in pursuance of speclflo appropriations msde 

by law: nor shall any appropriation of' awne)' be 

&de f&r a longer teim than -~two (S) yeare. :. .* 

attempted 

qulrement 

we shed1 first diaaues 

appropriation Ooapllea 

that it be speolrlo. 

the question 0i whether thle 

with tho Constitutional re- 
-norable Bert Ford, AdalnlIMator, Page S 

In Atkins T. State ZIighwap Department, 201 8. 1. 

226, the mstln Court of ClvIl Ap enl8 

f 

oonsldered this qubatlon in relation to an approprlot on deaorlbe4 Ln the aourt’s 

opinion as follows: 

*AU funds oomlng into the handa OS the Highway 

Commlmion, derived from the Registration Fees hereinbefore protided for, or from other souroes, ais 

oolleotsd, shall be depoelted with the State Trwsurer to the credit of a apeoial fund designated as 

the ‘steta, lUghway mar ma &all be pal4 (out) 

only* la the manner prov 1 ded in the AOt an4 for purpOWS 6tated. 

After revlewlng the hlrtorfoal praatloa of the Leg&alature in appropriating in auoh manner, the Court aoneludoaI 

We think the Lugi8lature had the power to 

make the appropriation, here Involved, in the 

mmner thet it did, and we hold that the ptorlslons oi the A& In re@rd thereto eonstibuto 

R vdia 5ppsopriatlon of the funds nmntloned to 

a04 for the purposes stated in the Aat. It I8 

not to be underetood, however, that we hold the 

ap roprintlon Good for a longer term than two 

(27 paam* . .* 

In Tiokle v. Finley, 91 Tex, 4%, 483, it was aaid 

by the Suprem Court I 

*ft is alaar, t&t 6n appropriation need, not 

be made lk the general approprlatlon bill. It 161 

also true, that no speoifI@ woords are neoeseary ln 

order to make an appropriation; and it may be Bonoedea, as 0.3ntdie4, t&t an appropriation map be 

made by l;:.~lioation when thi+ language eplployed 

le~¶~ to t&o belief that such *Pa8 the intent of 

the LegisLature. , .” 

;ryaln it was declared by the Supreme Court, apealc1nC through Zr. Justioe Crltz, in National Blsouit Company 

Y. state, 136 S. W. (2d) 689, 693t 

*AB just stated, one of the provisions Of 

Seotlon 0 of Artlale 8 of our Conatltutlon requlres all appropriations of money out of the 

State Treasury to be speaiflo. It is settled 
anorable Bcirt Ford, Administrator, Pago 4 

that no partloular form OS words 1s require4 to render an approprlatlon epeolflo wlthin the meanznof the constitutlonal provielon under dleousIt is suffl~lent if the Legislature authorlms'the expenditure by law, and spaoltles the 

purpose for whiah the approprfatlon Is amdo. m 

appropriation oan be mado for all funds oolp~ 

from certain souross and drposlted in a epeelal 

fuud ror a designated purpose. Za mash imMienee8, 

It Is not neoeesary for the appropriating Aat to 

name a oertaln 6um or even e eertaln maximum sum. 

38 Tex. hr. 

i 

pp. 844-845, 860. W, aud authorlties there a ted." 

At page 644 of Tex, fur., Vol. 98, olted by the 

Supraum Court In the foregoing oeae, it is veldt 

"The approprlatlon need not, however, be mdr 

ia the general appropriatfon bill nor lr enj particular form of wurdSl required. ft 16 sufflolent 

if the Legislature euthorlree the expenditure by 

law, and specifies the puxpoae ior whioh the appreprlation Is made.* 

Cited in support or the text are the 6e8e8 of TmreU I. Spark8, 104 Tex. 191, l88 8. W. 1619, b the $uprrro 

Oourt, ana Cherokee Countr f. Odea 997 8. 9. % 5S frevermd 

on other grounds, 15 S. n. (Ed) &5&), In the letter aem lX 

Wa8 raid; 

*It i@ oufflolent if the Le&rlatUe aptherioes by au appropriete.law the expendltuse, and 

fix%8 some lieritation ~11~013 the aPOunt.* 

In the Terre11 aa8e, the 80 FIIL~ Court oonstruad 

aa epproprlatlon which Wa8 tri the f0 lf owing bULgUyY8l 

“for the purpose of enforoing any and all 

laws of the State, CC Texas, and far ths purpare 

of paying any ana all neaeasary expense8 in bringlag suits or paying mp58er In proseauting 8apI, 

there 16 hereby approprleted~out or any m58y in 

the state Treasury, not otherwl8e appropriated, 

the 8ura of Twenty-fire Thousand Dollar6 (#95,000) 

or 80 muah thereof a8 may be noOe88ary, to be Upend& under the dirsdtloii of the kttorney.General 
gonorable Bert Ford, admlnlstrator, I-age 5 

by and with the approval Of the GovernoF, and to 

be paid upon warrants drawn by the ComptrolJer 

o? i;ubllc lraOounts on vouchers approved by b& 

Attorney General." 

PertaInIn& thereto, the Supreme Court sala: 

*We are of the opinion that the Aot of the 

31st Leglsl.ature which is oopled above Is euffloiently speolflo In making the appropriation thereln mentimed ana is not vlolatlre of Seation 6, 

.+xtlale VIxr, of the COn8titutiOn." 

Adrertlaa; to Seotlon 3 of nrtlale XX of House sll 8, 

the fo~crwing Is ap uantr (I) The Legl8leture ha8 eutheited 

the expenditure by %w* , (2) it has epeolfled the purposes fop 

whiOh the approprlatlon is made; (3) it ha8 limited the a&e- " 

priatlon to the sum8 necessary to a0ooPspllsh the 8peciXled 

admlnl8tratlve cots. The Supreme Court awlarea In the National 

Bi8Ouit Company Oa8e that it lo nOt nsoe8sary for the appropriation to nams a aerta5.n 8um or a maximum sum. 

Under the authority of the oaaee whioh sm hate reviewed, It 1~ our opinion that the appropriation In Seotlm S 

of Art1018 Ix of House Bill 8 Of the 47th Legislature is suffiolently 8peOlflc wlthln the requirements of the Constitution 

of Texar. 

We turn now to the question of whether the approprlatlon may be~upheld under the pr0v18lon of SeetlOn 6 Of 

Article VIXI of the Conetltut$on whloh provides that no appropriation of meney shall be llyIda far a longer term than 

two yeare. 

seotlon 8 0i Artlole fI of BouM Bill 8 dOe8 5Ot 

expreesly mik0 an eppraprlatlon for a two year term nor for 

any term aertain. It Is, haersr olear that Art1816 XX 

would beoome effeotlre thirty (301 days fros the effeotlva 

date of House 313,.6+ 

Xt IS also !mnlreet that the admlnlstration~~of brtl01s IX wuuld be required lnmedlat%Ly in the partioulars provided for In Seotlon 3 therabf. A new tax we0 leviedi it wa8 

to be paid by the afflxatlon of tax stamps and these 8talPp8 

nould have to be BeaUred; new xevenues tRotid be reoaired additional employees and auditors would have to be employ0 d $ and 

new forms, records and regulations would become essential. 
&norable Bsrt Ford, Mmlnistratm, Page 6 

Iii the YOTy llatUl’0 Of Artiah E, anb Of &use BiU 

8 Itself, we nwreaearily must eonolude thst the Legislature 

appropriated to the Texas Liquor Control Board the funds neoessary for the administration of the Artiole Immediately upon 

the effectfve date thereof. 

. 

This being true, together with the faot that the 

L@.slature did not expressly preeoribe the tern of the appropriatlon, may It be upheld, although not for longer than 

a two year term? We t&Ink 80. 

In Opinion MO. O-3621, this departpasnt reaently held 

that an appropriation iOr an apparent period of longer than 

two years nri~y none the lees be valid for a tw year term, although ino ratlve thereafter. 

announoed G 

We beli.ere that the prlnoiples 

Opinion HO, O-3Ml are likewlee appllaable to the 

question at hand. 

The Constitution prohibits an approprlatlon for a 

longer period than t*rr, year8 to prevent one Legislature from 

direatlng and oontrolling the expenditure of State fiuwls beyond the omtrol of a subsequent &gloluture. This 18 the 

fundamental prlneiple involved, Constant rlgilanoe over the 

finances oi the State is thereby aahiov6dr Mistakes of one 

Legislature in authorlzlng the expandlture of money may bo 

oorreoted by the subsequent Leglslatura. Therefore It -1s hot 

oontrary to the Constitutional principle enunciated in Yeotlon 6 of Artiole VXII of the Constitution OS Texas to hold 

'that an approprIatIon by one LegI8lature bt no fixed duration 

may be upheld'for not longer than a two year period when th6 

prerogatives of the forthoomlng Legislature ln raspeat to 

the expendituree OS publio moneys will not be trangreased. 

It 1s understandable, thererore, when thEzrgtnz 

Atkins Y. State Highway Dapartmant, sups, say61 

to be understood, horever, that.we hold the appropriation 

gtood ror a longer term than two (8) yearae. 

And when the Supreme Court OS Texas in Hekle Y, 

Binloy aupra, dealaresr "ii they had made an appropriation 

in un&takable terms whioh was to oontinue for all time, it 

tight be held valid for two years, and inopsratlvs thereafteP. 
‘-norable Bert lord, Mmlnlstrator, Eage 7 

Whioh prinolple is again affirmed by the Supreme 

Court in Dallas County v. MoCornbs, 140 S. W. (2Q) llO9, wberein it was said: 

*Plaintiff in error contends that even if 

this apFro~rlati3n running for five years is in 

violation of the;: two years* provision of ueetlon 

6 of &ticle VlXX of our ionstltutlon as applied 

to the five year period taken as a whole, still 

it is not in vfolatlon ot sucrh aonstltutlonal 

provision as applied to the first two years of 

tie five year period. It seems to be the law 

that where the Legislature has made ‘an aaDr* 

ri~atlon in unmistakable terms, @ which continues 

or a longer period than two years, suoh appropriation may be upheld for the first two years, 

and would be inoperative thereafter, Fiakle Y. 

Finley, 91 Tsx. 484, 44 S.W. 480, 4@. It will 

be noted that the rule of law announosd in ldokle 

v. Finley, supra, aontem lates that that apprc 

priatlon shall be made ‘ii unmlstabble terms’. 

We interpret this to ,Qean that lf en approprlation .is made for more than two years, it oan be 

enfaMed for the first tm years if it appears 

that the Legislature undoubtedly Intended sueh 

apgroprlatlon to operate for two years, regardless of whether or not it could do so thereafter. 

Fe th%k that this rule oannot aid this appropriation, beoause wbsn all of the provisions of 

this hat are oonslaered together, we cannot say 

tt;at the Legislature would undoubtedly have passed 

it to operate for two years only, lnstend of five 

years as provided by the Act. 

“.. 

n 

. . . . 

ILouse Bill 8 is a tax mearureg it is c&led the 

omnibus tax law. One of the numerous additional or new 

taxes inposed by the Act is found in Artiale 1X. The rovisions of Article IX were to beaome eff8etive thirty 'I 90) 

days from the effeotlve date of House Bill 8. The appropriation ln Seotion 3 of ,,;rtiole IX w~ls for the obvious 

and In the Inherent neaessity, of enabling the 

+$$??%.quor Control Board to enforcre and colleot the tax 
Honorable B&t FOrtl, AbPinlStrator, Page 8 

levied by .irtlolO ut. The Legislature itself recognized 

that new Stamps, additional auditors, eaployeea, torum, and 

reoorde, would be neoartaary to efteotuate the pro~lslont~ 

of .irtlole IX. These eonsldertatlon8 oorapel ud to attribute 

to the Leglsleture the intent that the appropriation in SOQtion 3 should be operative regar4leas of whether or not it 

eeula be 60 ror e longer psrlod than two years. 

AOOOr6f~l~, It la the 0oneldersd opinion oi this 

department that the appropriation in seatlon 3 of Artiole IX 

or House Bill 8 or the 47th Legfslature is sufriolentlp speoifio under the Constitution of Texas and that the approprlatlon mde therein ia efrectire although not for a longer 

tera then two years from its ektlve date an4 until an4 

as mocllrled or superseded by tbs 67th Legisiature. See SaOtion 6 0r ArtlOle XXI o? IEDuar Bill 6,