Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, 

Acting Executive Director, 

Board for Texas State Hospitals 

and Special Schools, 

Austin, Texas Opinion NO. WW-265. 

Re: Validity of Sections '7a 

and 7b of Article II, 

H.B. 133, Acts 55th 

Legislature, 1957, Ch. 

335, p. 926 (General 

Dear Mr. Vowell: Appropria$i90nAct, 1957). 

You have presented for our consideration ~the question 

of the validity of Sections 7a and 7b of Article II, H.B. 133, 

Acts 55th Legislature, 1957, Ch. 385, p. 926. We previously 

held in Opinion w-96 that Section 7 of Article II of the Bill 

as originally introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives was invalid as containing within the General Appropriation Bill provisions which are the subject of general legislation. 

The Bill originally introduced was amended to such 

an extent that we do not think Opinion WW-96 controls the decisjon -in this opinion. Although dealing with the same general 

su.bJect matter, the Appropriation Act as finally passed differs 

markedly from the Bill as originally introduced. 

In Opinion WW-96 th1.s office held that the General 

Appropriation Bill may direct approprliation of money Andy may 

detail, limit or restri.ct the use of funds so appropriated 

where such provisions are necessarily ,;Annected with and incidental to the appropriation and use of' ;he funds. Conley v. 

Daughters of the Republic of 'Texas, 106 Te.x. 80, 150 S.W. 19: 

,I~913 ) . 

Such provisions concerning accounting prociedures 

and directions as to the method of expenditure anci reimbursement of certain funds are permissible and proper so long as 

they do not conflict with the general law on t.he subject. 

Attorney General's Opinion V-1254. However, general legislation constitutes a separate subject and cannot be ineluded 

within a General Appropriation B111, and a rider to a general 
Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, Page 2 (WW-265). 

appropriation bill cannot repeal, modify or amend an existing 

7 

eneral law. Moore v. Sheppard, 144 Tex. 537, 192 S.W. 2d 559 

1946); Linden v. Finley 92 Tex. 451, 49 S.W. 578 (1899); 

State v. Steele, 5'1 Tex.'203 (1882); Attorney General's Opinion 

0. V-1254. 

Section 7 concerns the admission and transportation 

of non-residents and aliens. Subsection (a) of Section 7 

provides as follows: 

"None of the moneys appropriated 

by this Article may be expended for the 

training or medical treatment of any 

student or patient who is not a citizen 

or resident of this State. For the 

purpose of this provision, affidavits 

from two reputable persons shall be 

deemed adequate evidence of citizenship 

or residency." 

If this provision amounts to an enactment of the Legislature which is properly the subject of general law, it will be 

invalid under the above cited cases. It is apparent that by 

this provision the Legislature has evidenced its intent that no 

money be expended for a certain purpose i.e., the training or 

medical treatment of non-residents. 

In Linden v. Finley, supra, the Legislature provided 

that district attornevs on a fee basis should be oaid only one 

fee where the defendant was convicted on several cases and 

received concurrent sentences. The general law provided for 

fees for every case in which a conviction was had by the Di5- 

trict Attorney regardless of the nature of the sentence. The 

Court held the provisions of the Appropriation Bill valid,even 

in the face of the general fee law, and in so holding, stated: 

II 

. . . But the provision under 

consideration does not purpcrt to change 

the laws existing at that time which provide what fees the officers therein named 

shall receive from the state. It simply 

acts upon the appropriation for the two 

years beginning March 1, 1897, and limits 

the payment of fees in felony cases to 

convictions ,in which the term of the 

sentence is not made to run concurrently 

with the term of a previous sentence. 

There is nothing in the constitution 

which prohibits the legislature from 
- . 

_ . i 

Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, Page 3 (~~-265)~ 

limiting any appropriation by any apt 

words expressive of their intent. 

Should they even fail to appropriate a 

salary fixed by the constitution, the 

officer affected by It is without remedy 

before the courts. However clear and 

however just the demand against the state, 

without an appropriation the comptroller 

is not authorized to draw his warrant for 

its payment; and, when the legislature 

says that a certain class o,f claims shall 

not be paid from an appropriation, they 

are excepted from t,he appropriation, and 

cannot lawfully be paid from the treasury. 

. . 0 Under our constitutfon, without an 

appropriation no money can be drawn from 

the treasury. ~ . .' 

It is our opinion that Section ?(a),above quoted, 

denies any appropriation for the performance of a statutory 

duty imposed by general law, but it does not at,tempt to change 

that general law. Accordingly, ,under the Linden case, we hold 

Section 7 (a) to be valid. 

Subsection (b) and its constituent parts, (l), (2) 

and (3), provide as follows: 

"The ccst, of deporting any non-resident 

or alien may be paid by any of the institutions named in this Article from appropriated 

funds available to such institutions. It is 

further provided that expenditures from appropriation items designated ?General Operating 

Expenses' and 'other operating expenses' in 

this Article, for the purposes of deporting 

non-residents or aliens or of returning Texas 

patients or students fr~:;'r~: other st,ates, shall 

be governed by the following additional rules 

and procedures: 

"(1) In order to conserve the use of 

personnel and reduce t,he costs of deporting 

patients, the superintendent of a hospital 

or institution named in Article II which is 

deporting patients may alsc include in his 

scheduled deportation trip patients approved 

for deportation from other State hospitals 

and institutions and be reimbursed by such 

other hospitals and institutions for their 
Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, Page 4 (~~-265). 

pro rata shares of the costs incurred. 

All such reimbursements are hereby appropriated to such hospital or Institution 

for 'ffeneral Operating Expenses' or 'other 

operating expenses'. 

"(2) To simplify the disbursement 

of funds for deportation purposes, the 

Hospital Board and hospitals or institutions 

under its jurisdiction may request commercial 

transportation companies to furnish the required transportation of patients and of 

attendants designated to accompany such 

patients. The cost of such transportation 

services are to be paid upon submission of 

purchase voucher to the Hospital Board or 

to the hospital or institution under its 

jurisdiction requesting such transportation 

services. 

“(3) The mental health agency of any 

other State or any institution operated thereunder which is deporting patients to Texas 

State hospitals, may be paid a pro rata share 

of any expenses incurred when patients from 

Texas State Hospitals are taken back to their 

state of residency by personnel of the aforementioned agency upon thei,r return trip." 

Subsection (b) as a whole concerns the accounting, 

allocation, and reimbursement involved in transporting patients 

from Texas to the states of their residence. Subsection (b) 

(1) allows a messenger from one State hospital to transfer 

patients from other State hospitals along with patients from 

his own hospital where possible, the expenses of such trip to 

be allocated on a pro rata basis to the hospitals or schools 

whose patients were transported. As such, it is an accounting 

provision and is a proper subject, for the General Appropration 

Bill. 

Subparagraph (b) (2) authorizes the purchase of public 

commercial transpor,tation, the cost of such transportation to 

be paid upon purchase vouchers to the Hospital Board. It is our 

opinion that this provision deals also with the accounting of 

funds expended for public transportation. It is a valid subject 

,to be included in the Appropriation Bill. 
. . . .I 

Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, Page 5 (~~-265). 

^ _, . 

Subparagraph (b) (3) concerns the payment of a pro 

rata share of the expenses of a messenger from another state, 

who, after having brought patients from another state to ~xexas, 

takes patients back to that state on his return trip. This 

provision again deals with the means of expenditure of the funds 

so appropriated and constitutes a valid subject for an appropriation bill. 

Therefore, we conclude that Subsection (a) of Section 

7 of Article II, House Bill 133, Acts 55th Legislature, 1957, 

Ch. 385. p. 926 (General Appropriation Act, 1957) is valid, 

since the provision amounts to restricting the appropriation for 

a certain purpose, which action is within the prerogative of the 

Legislature. We further hold that Subsection (b) of Section 7 

contains provisions and requirements, the subject matter of which 

is necessarily connected with and incidental to the appropriation 

made by the bill. We do not find any conflict between these provisions and the general legislation on the subject of non-resident inmates, patients or students. Therefore, we hold Section 

7 to be valid in its entirety. 

SUMMARY 

Subsection (a) of Section 7, Article II 

H.B. 133, Acts 55th Legislature, 1957, Ch. 365, 

p. 926, is valid. Subsection (b) of Section 7, 

Article II, H.B. 133, Acts 55th Legislature, 

1957, Ch. 385, p. 926, is valid. 

Very truly yours, 

JHM:wam:pf 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

.T* C. Davis, Jr. 

John Reeves 

C. K. Richards 

W. V. Geppert 

APPROVED FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: James N. Ludlum. 

WILL WILSON