Honorable Henry G. Lehman, Chairman 

Claims and Accounts Committee 

House of Representatives 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3371 

Re: Whether the Legislature 

may appropriate money to 

the Citiiens National Bank 

of Cameron, Texas, to reimburse it for losses sustained by the purchase of 

certain Confederate Pension 

Warrants. I, 

You have requested our opinton on the question of whether the Legislature may appropriate money to pay the Citizens National Bank of Cameron, 

Texas, for losses sustained by it on the purchase of certain Confederate Pension Warrants upon which the State Comptroller has stopped payment. You 

have submitted to us, together with your request, the files of the Bank relating to these warrants which reflect ~the following warrants now held by the 

Citizens National Bank of Cameron: 

1. Eight warrants of Twenty-five Dollars each issued to Mrs. 

Sarah Jane Adams from August, 1936, to May, 1937, totalling Two 

Hundred Dollars. The file indicates that Mrs. Adams qualified for 

Confederate Pension from the State of Louisiana in 1938 upon affidavit by her that she had been a resident of Louisiana for at least 

five years prior to that date. 

2. Nine Confederate Pension Warrants of Twe,nty-five Dollars 

each issued to Mrs. W. E. Oxford. In letter of Mrs. Oxford, dated 

March 29, 1937, she states that she at that time had bean living in 

Los Angeles for a year and a half. 

3. Nine Confede,rate Pension Warrants of Twenty-five Dollars 

each totalling Two Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars issued to Mrs. 

Cordelia A. Forrest. Mrs. Forrest:dled in Knoxville, Tennessee 

on January 4, 1936, and the file indicates that she had lived ,in Tennessee since August, 1934. 
Honorable Henry G. Lehman, Page 2. O-3371 

4. Twenty-five Dollar and Fifty Dollar Confederate Pension Warrants totalling Six Hundred and Seventy-five Dollars 

issued to Mr. W. M. Seale. The file submitted to us relating 

to Mr. Seale’s warrants Is not complete and consequently we 

made inquiry of the Confederate Pension Division of the 

Comptroller’s Department and learned that Mi. Scale had been 

receiving two warrants every month at different addresses for 

a number of years and that by reason thereof he had received 

about Nine Hundred Dollars in pension money over what he was 

.entitled to under the law and that’this Nine Hundred Dollars is 

still unpaid to the State. 

5. Five warrants of Twenty-five Dollars each totalling 

One Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars issued to Mrs. Lucinda 

A. Miers. The Confederate Pension Division of the Comptroller’s Department advises us that Mrs. Miers remarried on 

June 29, 1937, and that she has cashed warrants totalling Three 

Hundred Dollars since the date of her marriage which sum she 

has not repaid to the State. 

Article 6220, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, provides in 

part: 

I’* * *, and no pensioner who leaves this State for a period 

of over skmonths shall draw a pension while so absent; * * *.” 

Clearly, under this provision the warrants described above in paragraph Nos. 1, 2 and 3, issued to Mrs. Sarah Jane Adams, Mrs. W. E. Oxford 

and Mrs. Cordelia A. Forrest, were invalid by reason of the fact that the 

payees were out of the State more than six months when these warrants we,re 

issued. The Comptroller properly stopped payment on thase warrants when 

he learned of the absence from the State of these payees. 

Article 4350, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, as amended, 

reads,: 

“No warrant shall be issued to any person indebted to the 

State, or to his agent or assignee, until such d,ebt is paid.” 

Since Mr. W. M. Seale is indebted to the State in the amount of approximately Nine Hundred Dollars because of double payment to him as described 

in paragraph No. 4, above, Mr. Seale has been ineligible for further pension 

payment8 from the date such double payment commenced until the debt shall 

have been repaid by him. 
Honorable Henry G. Lehman, Page 3, O-3371 

Article 6205, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, provides in 

part: 

“9 * * A widow entitled to a pension under this Act, 

but who remarries a man other than a Confederate soldier 

or sailor shall not be entitled to a pension, but shall not be 

barred from receiving a pension in the event she should be 

left a widow after such remarriage, so long a,s she remains 

a widow.” 

By virtue of this provision, Mrs. Lucinda A. Miers has been ineligible for Confederate pensions since the date of lar subsequent marriage on 

June 29, 1937, and consequently pension warrants issued to her since that 

date are invalid. 

It appears, therefore, that none of the payees of the above described 

, warrants were eligible to receive Confederate pensions when these warrants 

were issued. State warrants are not negotiable paper in the sense that they 

become incontestable in the hands of a holder in due course. Lasseter v. 

Lopez (Tex, Sup. Ct.), 217 S. W. 373; Keel v. Pulte (Tex. Corn. Ape.), 10 S. W. 

(2d) 695. 38 Texas Jurisprudence852 states the rule as follows: 

“A warrant issued by the Comptroller is not a negotiable 

instrument in the sense that an innocent purchaser could collect from the State the amount stated on the face of the warrant 

regardless of the amount actually due.” 

Since under the statutes, the State owed nothing to the payees of these 

warrants when issued, the Comptroller acted properly in stopping payments on 

the outstanding warrants upon being advised of the ineligibility of the recipients. 

We turn now to the question of whether the Legislature may appropriate 

money to reimburse the Cittzens State Bank of Cameron for its loss by reason 

of its purchase of these invalid warrants. 

In State v. Wilson, 71 Tex. 291, the Texas Supreme Court held invalid 

an act of the Legislature which sought to reimburse a contractor for his LOSS 

due to the discount he was required to take on State warrants. We quote from 

the opinion of Judge Gaines in that case at page 302: 

“The payment of this claim is prohibited by section 44 of 

article 3 of the Constitution, which provides that the Legislature 
Honorable Henry G. Lehman, Page 4, O-3371 

shall not ‘grant by appropriation or otherwise any money out 

of the treasury of the State to any individual on a claim, real 

or pretended, when the same shall not have been provided for 

by the pre-existing law’.” 

In 1934, the Commission of Appeals in Austin National Bank v. 

Sheppard, 71 S. W. (2d) 242, at page 245, speaking through Judge Critz, in 

construing the same provision of Article 3, Section 44, said: 

“By its expre,ss words the constitutional provision under 

consideration in no uncertain terms prohibits the Legislature 

from appropriatmg state money to ‘any individual’ unless such 

appropriation shall have been provided for by a ‘pre-existing 

law.’ We interpret this to mean that the Legis,lature cannot appropriate state money to ‘any individual’ unless, at the very 

time the appropriation is made, there is already in force some 

valid law constituting the cla,im the appropriation is made to pay 

a legal and valid obligation of the state. By legal obligation is 

meant such an obligation as would form the basis of.a judgment 

against the state in a court of competent jurisdiction in theevent 

it should permit itself to be sued. Nichols v. State, 11 Tex. Civ. 

App. 327, 32 S. W. 452 (writ ref.); State v. Haldeman (Tex. Civ. 

Ape.), 163 S. W. 1020 (writ ref.); State v. Wilson, 71 Tex. 291, 

9 s. w. 155. 

“In connection with the above, the case of Kilpatrick v. 

Compensation Claim Board that a mere moral obligation will 

authorize an appropriation by the Legislature. No writ was 

applied for in that case, and it never received the sanction of 

this court. The Kilpatrick Case cites Weaver ,v. Scurry County 

(Tex. Civ. Ape.). 28 S. W. 836; Chambers v. Gilbe,rt, 17 Tex.. 

Civ. App. 106, 42 S. W. 630; and State v. Elliott (Tex. Civ. App.) 

212 S. W. 695. We have carefully examtired these authorities, 

and in our opinion none of them supportthe holding that a mere 

moral obligation will support an appropriation of state money 

to an individual,” 

Under the foregoing authorities it seems apparent that an appropriation to reimburse the Bank for its loss on the purchase of these invalid Confederate Pension Warrants is forbidden by,Article 3, Section 44 of the Constitution of Texas. 
Honorable Henry G. Lehman, Page 5, 0-3371 

We are returning to you herewith the files relating to the five 

pensioners which you submitted to us. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Walter R. Koch 

Assistant 

PROVED MAY 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

WRK:RS 

APPROVED 

OPINION 

Chairman