Hon. Jesse James 

State Treasurer 

Treasury Department 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion No. V- 1291 

Re: Legality of accepting from State 

employees voluntary non-subversive oaths which contain all 

of the provisions mentioned in 

the general appropriation bill 

rider. 

Your request for an opinion reads as follows: 

“Nith reference to your opinion concerning the retrospective portion of the non-subversive 

oath rider in the general appropriation bill, it is 

my understanding that this simply holds that such 

part of the oath cannot be required as a prerequisite to payment of salaries because it was improperly included in a general appropriation bill instead 

of a general statute. 

“I do not understand that you have ruled that 

the entire oath or any part thereof would be unconstitutional in a general law. Therefore, I am wondering if it would not be proper and legal for me to 

accept voluntary oa-ths exactly as written in the 

rider if I deem that as necessary information as to 

my employees. _> 

“Personally I want to sign the oath that I do 

not now and have never belonged to any subversive 

gr’oup and I would like to have the same information from the employees of my department. I am 

sure none of them have ever belonged to any such 

groups and that all would voluntarily sign the entire oath. I understand that is the procedure which 

was followed in your department prior to the writing of your opinion on the subject. 

“Is there anything to prohibit us as department heads from gaining this information from 

our employees voluntarily and considering such information in deciding what employees we desire to 

retain in State employment?” 
Hon. Jesse James, page 2 (V-1291) 

You have interpreted our Opinion No. V-1263 (1951) correctly. The retrospective portion of the “Non-Subversive Oath” 

required by the general appropriation bill for the biennium ending August 31, 1953 (Art. VI, Sec. 1, H.B. 426, Acts 52nd Leg., 

R.S. 1951, ch. 499, p0 1228) was held to be invalid because it was 

a subject of general legislation and therefore could not be constitutionally included within a general appropriation bill. We 

held that the retrospective portion of the oath cannot be required 

as a prerequisite to payment of State salaries, since it was improperly included in a general appropriation bill. We did not 

pass upon the question of whether the retrospective portion of 

the oath could have been required in a gqneral statute nor whether such oaths may be obtained by heads of the State departments 

as an administrative matter in determining the background, loyalty, and character of employees and applicants for employment. 

If you deem the information contained in the full oath 

as desirable and necessary information as to your employees, we 

know of no reason why the complete oath may not be accepted on 

a voluntary basis. Your office, our office, the Governor’s office, 

and many of the other departments of the State government obtained execution of the complete oath by all employees prior to 

our Opinion No. V-1263. As an administrative matter, this office will continue to seek the entire information contained in the 

“Non-Subversive Oath,” as written by ,the Legislature and accept 

voluntary execution thereof in’order to obtain full knowledge of 

the background and loyalty of future applicants for employment. 

Needless to say, there his no reason why the heads of departments of the State government may not consider such information in deciding whether a person will be a proper and loyal employee. 

Our State officers are required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States 

and of the State of Texas. A portion of that oath contained in 

Article XVI, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution reads as follows: 

” ‘I , do solemnly swear (or 

affirm), hat I will faithfully execute the duties of the 

office of of ,the State of Texas, 

and will to the best of my ability‘preserve. protect, 

and defend the Constitution and laws of the United 

States and of this State; . . .“” 

In the discharge of our duties in accordance with the 

above oath, State officers are entitled to have employees who will 
c 

. 

Hon. Jesse James, page 3 (V-1291) 

assist them in preserving, protecting,and defending the Constitution and laws of the State and Nation, and they have the right to employ only those persons who will so assist them. in the discharge 

of their duties and the keeping:of their.oat@. There are available 

for State empIoyment so many citizens of unquestioned 1oyaIty 

that there is no reason to risk the performance of State jobs in 

the hands of anyone whose loyalty is questionable because of 

having knowingly and intentionally participated in a subversive 

organization. 

Therefore, it is our opinion that it is entirely proper 

for you to obtain and consider the information contained in the 

complete text of the “Non-Subversive Oath” the same as any 

other information concerning. the character, background, and 

loyalty of your employees and applicants for employment in order to be certain that you will have proper assistance from your 

employees in discharging the duties of your office in accordance 

with your Constitutional oath of office. 

SUMMARY 

The head of a State department may accept 

and consider the complete “Non-Subversive Oath” 

contained in the general appropriation bill for the 

biennium ending August 31, 1953 (Art. VI, Sec. 1, 

H.B. 426, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S 1951., ch- 499, p. 

1228) on a voluntary basis as an administrative 

procedure in determining the background, character, and loyalty of his employees. 

Every State officer is entitled to consider 

information concerning previous membership in 

subversive organizations in determining whether 

an employee can properly assist him in faithfully 

executing the duties of his office and in discharging his Constitutional oath “to preserve, protect 

and defend the Constitution and laws of the United 

States and of this State.” Article XVI. Section 1. 

Texas Constitution. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

Price Daniel 

Attorney General 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

Executive Assistant