Mr. Raymond W. Vowell,

Acting Executive Director, Board for Texas State Hospitals and Special Schools, Austin, Texas OpinionNO. 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~thequestion 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 Opinionw-96 that Section 7 of Article II of theBill
as originally introduced in the Senate and House of Representativeswas invalid as containingwithin the General AppropriationBill provisionswhich are the subject of general legislation.

The Bill originally introducedwas amended to such
an extent thatwe do not think OpinionWW-96 controls the decisjon -inthis opinion. Although dealingwith the samegeneral su.bJect

matter, the AppropriationAct as finally passed differs markedly from the Bill as originally introduced.

In OpinionWW-96 th1.s office held that the General AppropriationBill may direct approprliation of money Andy

may detail, limit or restri.ct the use of funds so appropriated where suchprovisions are necessarily ,;Annected with and incidental to the appropriationand use of';he funds. Conley v. Daughters of the Republic of 'Texas, 106 Te.x.80, 150 S.W. 19: ,I~913 )

. Such provisions concerningaccountingprociedures and directionsas to themethod of expenditureancireimbursement of certain funds are permissible and proper so long as they do not conflictwith the general law on t.hesubject. Attorney General's OpinionV-1254. However, general legislation constitutesa separate subject and cannotbe ineluded within a General AppropriationB111, and a rider to a generalMr. RaymondW. Vowell, Page 2 (WW-265).

appropriationbill cannot repeal,modify or amend an existing

7eneral 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:

"Noneof the moneys appropriated by this Articlemay be expended for the training or medical treatment of any student or patientwho is not a citizen
or resident of this State. For the purpose of this provision, affidavits from two reputablepersons shallbe deemed adequate evidence of citizenship
or residency."

If thisprovision 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 Legislaturehas evidenced its intent that no money be expended for a certainpurpose i.e., the training or medical treatment of non-residents.

In Linden v. Finley, supra, the Legislatureprovided that district attornevs on a fee basis shouldbe oaid only one fee where the defendantwas convicted on several cases and received concurrent sentences. The general law provided for fees for every case in which a convictionwas had by the Di5- trict Attorney regardless of the nature of the sentence. The Court held the provisions of the AppropriationBill valid,even in the face of the general fee law, and in so holding, stated:

II

. . .But the provisionunder considerationdoes not purpcrt to change the laws existing at that time which provide what fees the officers thereinnamed shall receive from the state. It simply acts upon the appropriationfor the two years beginning March 1, 1897, and limits the payment of fees in felony cases to convictions ,inwhich 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. RaymondW. Vowell, 

### Page3 (~~-265)~

limiting any appropriationby any apt words expressive of their intent. Should they even fail to appropriatea salary fixed by the constitution, the officer affectedby 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,fclaims shall not be paid from an appropriation, they
are excepted from t,he appropriation,and cannot lawfullybe paid from the treasury.

. . 0 Under our constitutfon,without an appropriationno 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, ,underthe Linden case,we hold Section 

### 7 (a) to be valid.

Subsection (b) and its constituentparts, (l), (2) and 

### (3),provide as follows:

"The ccst,

of deporting any non-resident
or alien may be paid by any of the institutionsnamed in this Article from appropriated funds available to such institutions. It is further provided that expenditures from appropriation

items designated ?GeneralOperating Expenses' and 'otheroperating 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 theuse of personnel and reduce t,he costs of deporting patients, the superintendentof a hospital
or institutionnamed in Article II which is deporting patientsmay alsc include in his scheduleddeportation trippatients approved for deportation from other State hospitals and institutions and be reimbursedby such other hospitals and institutions for theirMr. RaymondW. Vowell, Page 4 

### (~~-265).

pro rata shares of the costs incurred. All such reimbursementsare hereby appropriated to such hospital or Institution for 'ffeneral

Operating Expenses' or 'other operating expenses'.
"(2) To simplify the disbursement of funds for deportationpurposes, the Hospital Board and hospitals or institutions under its jurisdictionmay request commercial transportationcompanies to furnish the required transportationof 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 institutionunder 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 incurredwhen patients from Texas State Hospitals are takenback to their state of residencyby personnel of the aforementioned agency upon thei,r return trip."
Subsection (b)as a whole concerns the accounting, allocation, and reimbursementinvolved in transportingpatients 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 hospitalwhere 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 GeneralAppropration 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 thisprovision deals also with the accounting of funds expended for public transportation. It is a valid subject ,to be included in the AppropriationBill.. . . .I

Mr. RaymondW. 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, takespatients back to that state on his return trip. This provision again dealswith the means of expenditureof the funds
so appropriatedand constitutesa 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 (GeneralAppropriationAct, 1957) is valid, since the provision amounts to restricting the appropriation for
a certainpurpose,which action is within the prerogative of the Legislature. We further hold that Subsection (b) of Section 

### 7 containsprovisions and requirements, the subjectmatter of which is necessarily connectedwith and incidental to the appropriation made by the bill. We do not find any conflictbetween 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 trulyyours,

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