August 29, 1951

Hon. D. K. Woodward, 

### Jr., Chairman Board of Regents The.University ofTexas Austin, Texas Opinion No. V- 1263

Re: Oath requirement for Uni- ’ versity ofTexas employees in view ofthe ‘Non-Subversive 

### Oath” provision of the Dear Sir: general appropriation bill,

**Ybur request**  for anopinion is in part as follows: ;.

“I respectfully **requ&t** your opinion on the **ques** tion 

### ofthe proper procedure tobe followed by The University ofTexas in complying with the **statutory** provisions requiring the execution ofloyalty oaths by its employees. There are three **statutes on**  this **sub** ject:

“(I) Article 29088, Vernon’s Texas Civil Stat**utes** (Acts 1941-47th Leg., p. 1355, ch. 617) requires the execution ofthe Constitutional oath required tobe taken by members of the Legislature and all other officers.

“(2) Article 2908b, ~Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes (Acts 1949, 51st Leg., p. 1368, ch. 621) requires the execution ofan oath to the effect, among other things, that the affiant does not believe inthe overthrow of the government by violence or other **unlaw** ful means and that the affiant is not,and has not been during the past twoyears a member ofa society or group advocating such overthrow.

“(3) 2ection 1ofArticle VI, entitled “General Provisions
,ofHouse Bill No. 426 (the general ap- ~propriation bill) passed by the 52nd Legislature requires the execution ofan oath to the effect;among other things, that .theaffiant has notbe,en during the past ten years a member ofany organization listed by the Attorney General’:of the United States in 1947 as being subversive. ,E’Hon. D. K.~Woodward, 

### Jr., Page 2 (V-1263)

“In order that The University ofTexas may follow the correct procedure in making contracts with its employees and in paying their compensation, we respectfully ask **your** opinion and advice as towhich of the above mentioned oaths should be required of
our employees.

“The question has been raised because of the fact that the Legislature has dealt with the matter as a subject ofgeneral legislation inArticles 2908a and 2908b, and the Constitution ofTexas has been interpreted insimilar cases so as to prohibit the amendment, change, or enaqtment of general legislation in
an appropriation bill. It presents the problem ofwhether the rider in the appropriation bill is constitutional, and if so. whether the loyalty oath therein required shall be substituted for the oath required by Article 2908a or Article 2908b or whether any two or all three of these oaths must be executed by employees ofthe state-supported institutions ofhigher learning.”

Article 2908a, V.C.S. (Acts of the 47th Leg., R.S. 1941, ch. 617, p. 1355) was passed in 1941 and required an oath ofallegiance by teachers, instructors and employees ofall tax-supported institutions of learning inTexas. This oath has the same wording
as the constitutional oath required of all State officers. The oath reads :

6.I, )do solemnly swear (or affirm), that Iwill faithfugy execute the duties of the office of ofthe State ofTexas, andwill to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws ofthe United States and of this State; and Ifurthermore solemnly swear?(or a& firm), that Ihave not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward for the giving or withholding avote at the election atwhich Iwas elected. So help me God.” Article XVI, Section 1, Texas Constitution.

In 1941 the Legislature enacted Article 2908b, V.C.S. (Acts ofthe 51st Leg., 1949, ch. 621, p. 1368), which applies to students as well as employees ofall State-supported universities and colleges. This statute requires the following oath:.
Han D, K. Woodward, Jr., 

### Page 3 (V-1263)

“I

### swear or affirm that Ibelieve in and approve the Constitution ofthe United States and the principles of government therein contained, andwill not in 

### anymanner aid~or assist inany effort or movement **to subvert**  or destroy the government of the United States or ofany State or ofany political subdivision thereof by force, violence, or any other unlawfulmeans. Inthe event ofwar with any foreign nation, Iwill not support or adhere to the government ofsuch foreign nation

“I swear or affirm that Iam not and have not during the past two (2) years been a member of or affiliated with any society or group ofpersons which teaches or advocates that the government of the United States or of any State or ofany political subdivision thereof should be overthrown or destroyed by force, violence, or any other unlawful means, or the adherence to the government ofany foreign nation inthe event ofwar between the United States and such foreign nation. ”

No person is tobe admitted or employed by any of these institutions until he has taken the oath, Provisions aremade for ahearing and appeal for any person accused and found guilty ofviolating the oath. To **our** best knowledge, the requirements of these **statutes** have been fully complied with in all respects since their passage, and you indicate in **your** request that they are being complied with at The University ofTexas

The Fifty-second Legislature attached a rider in the general appropriation bill (House Bill No. 426, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951, ch. 499, p. 1228) which provides:

“Set 1. No money appropriated by this Act shall be paid to any person as salary or as compensation for personal services unless anduntil such person has filed with the payroll clerk or official by whom such salary
or other compensation is certified for payment, an oath
or affirmation stating:

“(a) That the affiant is not, and has never been,
a member of the Communist Party. (The term ‘Communist Party’ as used herein means any organization which (a) is substantially directed, dominated or controlled by the Union ofSoviet Socialistic Republics or its satellites, or which (b) seeks tooverthrow the Government ofthe United States or ofany State by force, violence or any other unlawful means); and. ’
Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 4 (V-1263)

“(b) That the affiant is not, and for a period of at least ten (.lO)years has ,notbeen, a member ofany organization, association, movement, group or combination which theAttorney General of the United States, acting pursuant to Executive Order>No. 9835, March 21, 1947, 12Federal Register 1,935, has designated as totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive, or as having adopted apolicy ofadvocating or ., approving the commission ofacts offorce or violence. to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government ofthe United States by unconstitutional means; and

“(c) That the affiant is not, and for a period of at least ten (10) years has not been, a member ofany

‘Communist Political Organization’ or ‘Communist Front Organization’ registered under the Federal Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.A. 781, et seq.)
or required to so register under said Act by final 

### order of the Federal Subversive Activities Control Board.*’

“Sec. 2. The various agencies, departments, boards and institutions for which appropriations are made in this Act shall obtain and make available to their employees, the names oforganizations, associations, movements) groups and combinations comprehended by subdivisions (b) and (c) above inorder that such employees can readily perceive whether they can lawfully and truthfully file the oath or affirmation required herein.“’ Article VI, p. 1447.

Based upon these facts and summarizing **your** request, the following is the question presented for **our** consideration: Is the “Non-Subversive 0ath”required by Article VI ofthe General Provisions ofHouse Bill No. 426, Fifty-second Legislature, R.S. 1951, ch. 499, p. 1228, constitutional, and, ifso, does it supersede either or both ofthe oaths required by Articles 2908a and 2908b. V.C.S.?

The most serious problem which ,must be considered inanswering **your** question is whether legislation such as the rider prescribing the “Non-Subversive Oath” can be constitutio,nally included ina general appropriation bill. Ifthe above-quoted language
were included in a general statute the problem presented would be far less difficult. The .Legislature may enact many provisions of law in a general statute which it cannot include in a general appropriation bill. The primary constitutional limitation upon the subject matter of riders ina general appropriation bill is Section 35Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 5 (V-1263)

ofArticle IIIofthe Texas Constitution, 

### whichprovides:

“No bill, (except **general** appropriation bills, which, may embrace the various **subject8** and accounts, 

### for and on account 

### ofwhich 

### moneyn are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But ifany subject shall be embraced ,inan act, w~hichshall not be expressed in the title, 

### suchact shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed.”

The courts.of this State and many opinions of the Attorney General have held that under this constitutional provision general legislation cannot be contained in ageneral appropriation bill. The rule inthis regard is set **out** inAttorney General’s Opinion No, V-1254 (1951) as follows,:

“As long as ageneral appropriation bill includes only subjects ofappropriating money 

### andlimiting the
use thereof inharmony with general legislation, it may relate to any number of,different ‘subjects and accounts.’ Insuch instances all ofthe subjects are under the one general object and purpose ofappropriating funds from the treasury. The obvious purpose ofthis limited exception was to make certain that appropriations to more than one department inthe same bill would not be prohibited. Inall other respects generdl appropriation bills 

### are subject to the same prohibition as all other bills against containing more than one subject. The result is that general legislation cannot be embodied within a general appropriation bill. Moore v Sheppard, supra.
“A general appropriation bill may 

### bedefined as a single bill which appropriates 

### fundsfor twoor more departments, subjects, accounts, 

### orpurposes, Ithas the one general purpose or subject matter ofappropriating money. 

### “General legislation does 

### more than appropriate money and limit its expenditure. 

### An said;by a former **Attorney** General inOpinion No. 2965 (1935),

-I

. . *ifthe Bill does more than set aside a **sum** of money, provide the means of itn distribution, **and** towhom it shall be distributed, then it is a general law 0

. .’
“Thus, the distinction between 

### general appropriation bills **and** general legislation has been recognizedHon. D. K. Woodward, 

### Jr., Page 6W-1263)

inthis State inthe simple fact that the former 

### merely sets apart sums ofmoney for specific objects and
uses while the latter does more than merely appropriate and limit the **use** offunds. General legislation constitutes a separate subject and cannot **be** included within ageneral appropriation bill. Moore v. Shepe, supra; Att’y Gen. Op. 2965, supra-

“This does not mean that general legislation may not contain an appropriation which is merely incidental to and necessary to carry out the subject and purpose ofthe general law. Attorney General’s Opinion No. 2965, supra. Neither does it mean that ageneral ap-. propriation bill may not contain general provisions and details limiting and restricting the **use** ofthe funds therein appropriated, ifsuch provisions are necessarily connected with and incidental to the appropriation and use ofthe funds and ifthey do not conflict with or amount to general legislation. Conley v. Daughters of the Republic, 106 Tex. 80, 156 S.W. 197 (19131.”

The same opinion states a general rule with reference to matters that may be included ina general appropriation bill as follows:

“With special regard towhat incidental provisions may be included within ageneral appropriation bill, **our** Texas courts have not stated ageneral rule. However, from statements as towhat may not be irieluded and from numerous opinions ofthe Attorney General, we believe the rule may be stated generally
as follows: Inaddition toappropriating money and stipulating the amount, manner, and purpose of the various items of expenditure, a general appropriation bill may contain any provisions or riders which detail, limit, or restrict the **use** ofthe funds or otherwise in**sure** that the money is spent for the required activity for which it~is therein appropriated, ifthe provisions
or riders are necessarily connected with and incidental tathe4qgr4qriat~anrLlrsedUIP-0111216;.,dprQv~ I ,..,a ~>.. they do not conflict with general legislation.”

The legal and historical background of these **rules** is set forth ind*ail inOpinion No. V-1254, -, a copy ofwhich is attached for your information. The only way any part of the rider here inquestion can be upheld is under the general rule last quoted above. Any part ofthe rider which does not come within that rule is invalid.Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 7 (V-1263)

Ifthe “Non-Subversive Oath* rider applied only to State employees who are present members ofthe subversive organizations included inthe rider or those who become members thereof inthe future, we believe the rider would come within the above-mentioned **rule** for insuring that the money is spent for the required activity for which it is therein appropriated. This is true for the reason that the doctrine and teachings ofthose organizations is the very antithesis ofthe normal operation of State government and the proper fulfillment ofthe duties assigned to a State employee, hence payment to members thereof would result in partial failure ofthe appropriation.

Ithas been held that nounit of government can be de,- nied the right to keep out ofits employ those who seek to **over** throw the eovernment bv force or violence. or those who are knowingly members ofan organization engaged in such endeavor. Garner v. Board ofPublic Works, 71S.Ct. 909 (1951). That the ~iandations which are described as ommums “Communist Fronts” come within the proscribed group is clear. As stated by Mr. Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in United States v. Dennis, 71S.Ct. 857, 894 (1951):

” DD

. From time to time it [Communism] champions all manner of causes and grievances and makes alliances that **may** add to its foothold in government or embarrass the authorities.

“The Communist Party, nevertheless, does **not** seek its strength primarily innumbers. D

. ~ Itseeks members that are. or may be, secreted in strategic posts intransportation, communications, industry, government, and especially in labor unions where it
can compel employers to accept and retain its members. Italso seeks to infiltrate and control organieations ofprofessional and other groups. Through these placements in positions ofpower it seeks a leverage
over society that will make upin power of coercion what it lacks in power ofpersuasion.

“The United States, fortunately has experienced Communism only in its preparatory stages and for its pattern offinal action must look abroad o~~ Communist technique inthe overturn of afree government was disclosed by the coup d’etat inwhich they seized power in Czechoslovakia. There fhe Communist Party during its preparatory stage claimed and received protection for its freedoms of speech. press, and assembly. Pretending to be but another pofitical~ party. it eventuarrji-Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 8 (V-1263)

was c,onceded participation ingovernment, where it entrenched reliable members chiefly in control of police and information services. When the government faced a foreign and domestic crisis, the Cornmunist Party had established a leverage strong enough to threaten civil war. Ina period of confusion the Communist plan unfolded and the underground organization came to the surface throughout the country in the form chiefly oflabor ‘action committees.’ Communist officers of the unions took over transportation and allowed only persons with party permits to travel, Communist printers took over the newspapers and radio and put out only party-approved versions of events.. Possession was taken of telegraph and telephone systems and communications were cut off wherever directed by party heads. Communist unions took over the factories, and inthe cities a partisan distribution of food was managed by the Communist organization. A virtually bloodless abdication by the elected government admitted the Communists to power, whereupon they instituted a reign of oppression and terror, and ruthlessly denied toall others the freedoms which had sheltered their conspiracy.” (Emphases added throughout,)

A most important and fundamental step inthe seizing control of existing government by subversives is the creation of dissatisfaction among the loyal citizenry with government in its present democratic form. This attempt to create dissatisfaction, ofnecessity and by design, extends to all levels from the highest governmental position to the lowest. Infiltration and the subsequent performance ofassigned duties inan unsatisfactory manner is a most logical way to extend the idea that present government is inefficient and should be replaced. This weakening process is : one of the things which democracy must guard against in order to follow the most fundamental principles of self-preservation. Itis’ also commonly known that subyersives spend on-duty and off-duty time inall vocations working for, planning, and spreading their political beliefs and tearing down democratic principles and procedures. It is thus reasonable for the Legislature tohave made the determination that those persons who are members ofsubversive organizations would not properly fulfill the duties for which they would be paid out offunds appropriated in House Bill 426. Indeed, it is most reasonable to assume that there would be a fail-

‘ure of performance, and that the purpose of~theappropriation would be defeated inwhole or in part.

Viewed inthis light Section 1of Article VI ofHouse Bill 426 is very closely **analogous** to the rider prohibiting the **use**:

..” ,.

Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 9(V-1263)

ofappropriated funds “for the payment of salaries toany employee who **uses** alcoholic beverages while on active duty.” Subdiv. (23). Sec. 2, Art. III, H.B. 426, ~sura, at p. 1441, This rider was recently upheld as “insuring +- t at the purpose ofthe appropriation will not be defeated and the money wasted on an employee who 

### carries on unauthorized activities during the time for which he is being paid toattend to the State’s business.” Att’y Gen. Op. No. V-1254 (1951).

Another rider which ,was upheld on the same basis is that prohibiting payment ofappropriated funds toan employee who engages in certain political activities. Subdiv. (1l), Sec. 2. Art. III. H.B. 426, *, at p, 1434. In placing the political activities rider in the general appropriation bill the’Legislature has very clearly determined that no employee while on duty for the State should engage inaffairs tending toward the selection of

### persons to occupy elective offices and thus neglect or fail to perform the official duties for which he is being paid from appropriated funds. These prohibited activities would undoubtedly~ lead to a failure of the appropriation due to the impossibility ofproperly carrying on two functions at the same time. Inplacing the “Non-Subversive 0ath”rider inthe general appropriation bill the Legislature made the same determination with reference to those engaging in subversive activities. Subversives necessarily engage inactivities political in nature, as well as other activities tending toward the eventual overthrow ofthe State government. The two riders having been placed inthe general appropriation bill for the same purpose and the one held avalid inclusion, the other must also be valid.

As was stated by the Supreme Court ofthe United States inGarner v. Board of Public Works, su ra, with regard toan oath ----SF similar in many respects to that prescri ed’by Section 1ofArticle VI:

102-103, 67 S. Ct. 556, 570, 571, 91 L.Ed. 754, and a State is not,without power to do as much.”

What has been said with regard to that part of the rider prohibiting payment of funds therein appropriated to present or future members ofisub.versive.o’r.ganiaatibns iioes tint-,apply to‘the rider in ifs enfirety. That poition c.oncirning itseas wifhthe expendimre of appropriated funds for the payment bf,*salaries to,those who once belonged to a listed organization and who are now no longer spendin::Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 10 (V-1263)

’ ,/, ,/’ ,/’ time inthe conflicting and subversive activities contains subject matter of general legislation. Itis one thing to prohibit payment offunds to persons now belonging to subversive organizations and quite a different thing to prohibit payment and thereby deny State employment to those who once belonged but later renounced and do not now belong to such an organization.

A mere glance at the names of over 100 organizations
on theAttorney General’s present subversive list will reveal that perfectly loyal citizens could have been induced tojoin some of them without knowledge of their evil purposes. Such a person who innocently joined one of these organizations 7years ago but resigned and denounced it upon discovery of its subversive purpose 6years ago would nevertheless be prevented from receiving a State salary today under the 10year retroactive feature ofthe rider. This amounts to setting upa general qualification for State employees based uponwhat they belonged toandwhat their activities were inthe past rather than uponwhat they belong to, and do at the present or inthe future. Such general legislation may be proper and desirable, but ifso, it must be enacted ina general statute inorder tobe constitutional. This type of legislation has been held tobe a punishment for past activities, United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946); Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F.2d 46 (WApp. D.C. 1950) aff’d per curiam by adivided court 71 S.Ct. 669 (1951), and there can be no doubt but that provisions for punishment ofthis nature must be contained in general legislation rather than a general appropriation bill. Even indrafting ageneral lawwith retrospective provisions great care must be taken

‘to prevent a conflict with Section 16 ofArticle Iofthe Texas Constitution and Section 10ofArticle Iof the United States Constitution prohibiting the passage ofbills ofattainder or ex post facto Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1866); Fletcher v. Peck, nited States v. Lovett, supra; Garner v. Board ofPublic Works, supra; Bailey v. Richardson, supra.

The difference between what the Legislature may incorporate ina general appropriation bill andwhat it may not constitutionally incorporate therein is clearly illustrated by the prospective and retrospective features ofthe rider under consideration. The retrospective provision attempts to do more than insure “that the purpose ofthe appropriation will not be defeated and the money wasted on an employee who carries on unauthorized activities **dur** ing the time for which he is being paid toattend to the State’s business.” It is based on past activities of employees and not present activities which are certain to conflict with the purpose of the appropriation. On the other hand,
+. resent membership inan organization bent onoverthrowing or un ermming the State government has substantial ~effect upon an employee’s productivity at hisjob. As such, the prospective feature is:not an attempt to incorporateHon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 11 (V-1263)

general legislation ina general appropriation bill, but is only an attempt by the Legislature to insure that the money appropriated is spent for the designated purpose. The distinction between the prospective and retrospective features of the rider with regard toability or willingness to perform present or future duties is 

### apparent. Upon this distinction rests the difference in the legal principles tobe applied,

With the foregoing in mind, afinal answer to **your** 

### quertion involves several general and well-settled legal principles. It is well settled that in determining the constitutionality ofa statute it is the duty ofthe courts to uphold the legislative enactment ifat all possible and to adopt any reasonable construction which will place the statute inharmony with the Constitution rather than one which will **cause** the statute tobe inviolation thereof, Pickle v. Finley, 91 Tex. 484, 44 S.W. 480 (1898) and Greene v, Robison, 117 Tkx. 516, 82.S.W.2d 655 (1928). This
same duty applies with equal force to the Attorney General.

Similarly, it is incumbent upon us, by direct legislative mandate, should a portion ofSection 1ofArticle VI ofHouse Bill No. 426 be inviolation of the Constitution under any reasonable construction, to uphold any portion thereof which is constitutional. Article VII ofHouse Bill 426, a “saving clause,” provides:

“If any section, sentence,or clause or part of this Act shall for any reason.be held tobe invalid, 

### suchdecision shall not affect the remaining portions 

### ofthis Act, and itis hereby declared tobe the intention of the Legislature tohave. passed each sentence, section, clause or part thereof, irrespective of the fact that any other sentence, section,‘clause, or part thereof may be declared invalid.”

The language ofthe rider leaves nodoubt that the Legislature was ofthe opinion that any person belonging to one of the named organizations is unable to carry out his assigned duties, thereby causing afailure ofthe appropriation in part. That this is a reasonable assumption is borne out by United States v.

, and the previous discussion inthis opinion. Th
e attempted to insure that appropriated funds wo?d not be paid to one whose purpose is to undermine and destroy the State government by failing to perform or improperly performing his 

### assigned duties. In **our** opinion the rider, in so far as it requires an oath 

### ofno present or future membership in the subversive organizations, is valid. Under the saving clause this valid 

### portion ofthe rider is severable from that portion which is the subject of general legislation attempted ina general appropriation bill and hence unconstitutional 

### under Section 35 .ofArticle III of the Texas Constitution.Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 12 (V-1263)

The effect ofthe‘Non-SubversiveOath” rider as here- ,inr.onstrued is to require that every State employee execute the oatli required by this rider, which, to comply with the constitutionalrequirements, should read as follows:

“(a) That the affiant is nota member of,the Communist Party. (The term ‘Communist Party’ as used herein means any organization which (a) is substantially directed, dominated or controlled by 

### the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics or its satellites,
or which (b) seeks to overthrow the Government ofthe United States or of **any** State by force, violence 

### or any other unlawful means; and

“(b) That the affiant is not a member ofany organization, association, movement, group or combination which the Attorney General ofthe United States, acting pursuant toExecutive Order No. 9835, March 21, 1947, 12Federal Register 1935, has designated as totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive, or as having adopted a policy ofadvocating or approving the commission ofacts offorce or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States,
or as seeking to alter the form ofGovernment ofthe United States by unconstitutional means; and

“(c) That the affiant is not a member ofany

‘Communist Political Organization’ or ‘CZnmmunist Front Organization’ registered under the Federal Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.A. 781, et seq.)
or required to so register under said Act by final order of the Federal Subversive Activities Control Board.”

After receiving the list of subversive organizations listed by the Attorney General ofthe United States which serves as notice that those organizations listed are subversive, each employee must sign the oath prior to receiving his salary.

We are not unmindful ofthe rule oflaw that a general appropriation bill may not alter, amend 

### or repeal general law. Att’y Gen. Op. V-1254, supra, The constitutional portion ofthe rider inquestion does not violate this rule but is merely cumulative of statutes requiring execution and filing of oaths. Itis in complete harmony with the general statutes onthe subject. Conley v. Daughters ofthe Republic, 106 Tex. 80, 

### 156S.W. 197 m). Turning, then, to the procedure tobe followed at The University ofTexas, since the oaths required at State-supported institutions ofhigher learning are cumulative and each an additional safeguard against the employment of subversives, all three ofthe oaths must. Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Page 13 (V-1263)

be executed. Inthis connection we know ofno reason why they should notbejoined inone document and subscribed and sworn toas a single instrument.

. SUMMARY
_, 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., RS. 1951, ch. 499, pa1228), is constitutional and cumulative of the existing oaths to the extent that its operation is prospective. The rider to this extent is
a mere limitation upon the use ofthe money and insures that the money will be spent for the required activity for which itwas appropriated.

It is commonly known that Communists and other subversives spend on-duty and off-duty time mall vocations working ~for, planning, and spre,ading, ,their politicaI,,beliefs ‘and tearing down democratic principles ‘and procedures, Itis therefore a reasonable limitation, restriction, and safeguard.on the expenditure ofpublic fundsfor the Legislature toprovide that funds therein appropriated 

### for salaries shall notbe paid to employees who belong to subversive organizations. Since it is incidental to the appropriation and is not.an additional subject of general legislation, this provision does not violate Sec. 35, Art. IIIofthe Texas Constitution.

That portion of the rider which is retrospective rather than prospective 

### inoperation is a subject matter of general legislation and therefore invalid in a general appropriation bill. However, the two

### portions
are severable, and under thevalid portion each State employee must execute an oath that he is not a member ofthe Communist Party or any other subversive organisation referred to inthe rider before receiving 

### asalary from 

### money appropriated by House Bill 426.

EJ:wb:mwb