E NEY GENERAL 

OF YITE~~~s 

Hon. Robert S. Calvert 

Comptroller of 

Public Accounts 

State Capitol Building 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Opinion No. M- 408 

Re: Insurance for Legislators 

Dear Mr. Calvert: 

Reference ia made to your letter in which you request an opinion 

from this office as to the captioned matter. We quote from your 

letter, in part, as follows: 

“Your official opinion is requested as to 

whether the Comptroller is authorized to pay insurance premiums for members of the Legislature. 

An account for such payment has been received by 

this office. 

“Section 19 (sic) (Section 24) of Article III of 

the Constitution of Texas provides in part as follows: 

‘Members of the Legislature shall receive from the 

proper funds an annual salary not to exceed $4,800. 

per year. . . A per diem not to exceed $12.00 per day 

for the first 120 days only of each regular session of 

the Legislature. ’ (Emphasis added. ) 

“In addition. . . Section 6 of Article XVI of the 

Constitution of Texas forbids any appropriation for 

private or individual purposes. 

“Particularly in view of the Constitutional provisions 

quoted above relating to the compensation of members 

of the Legislature, is an account calling for the expenditure of funds, in excess of the limitation set out in the 

Constitution, for the purchase of the below listed types 

-2023- 
I&n. Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (M-408) 

of insurance a valid claim against funds in the State 

Treasury which the Comptroller is authorized to pay? 

“1. Premiums for sickness and accident insurance for members of the Legislature. 

“2. Premiuma for sickness and accident insurance for members, which includes benefits for 

dependents. 

“3. Premiums for life insurance for members. 

“4. Premiums for life insurance for members which 

includes coverage of dependents. ” 

It appears that the legal questions with which you are concerned involve whether the payment of the insurance premiums would (1) constitute additional “salary”, “per diem” or “mileage” in violation of the 

limitation on such items in Article III, Section 24, Constitution of 

Texas, or (2) would constitute an appropriation for private or individual purposes in violation of Article III, Section 51, and Article XVI, 

Section 6, Constitution of Texas. With this understanding, we confine our considerations to such questions. 

There are at least four Texas Constitutional prohibitions considered 

pertinent in respect to such questions, to-wit: 

1. Those contained in Article III, Section 51, to the effect that: 

“The Legislature shall have no power to make any 

grant or authorize the making of any grant of public 

moneys to any individual, association of individuals, 

municipal or other corporations whatsoever. . , “; 

-2024- 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (M- 40 8) 

2. Those contained in Article VIII, Section 3. to the effect that: 

“Taxes shall be levied and collected by general laws 

and for public purposes only.“; and, 

3. Those contained in Article XVI, Section 6, to the effect that: 

“(a) No appropriation for private or individual purposes 

shall be made unless authorized by this constitution. ” 

4. Those contained in Article III, Section 24, Constitution of Texas, 

which reads: 

“Sec. 24. Members of the Legislature shall receive 

from the Public Treasury an annual salary of not exceeding 

Four Thousand, Eight Hundred Dollars ($4,800) per year 

and a per diem of not exceeding Twelve Dollars ($12) per day 

for the first one hundred and twenty (120) days only of each 

Regular Session and for thirty (30) days of each Special 

Session of the Legislature. No Regular Session shall be 

of longer duration than one hundred and forty (140) days. 

“In addition to the per diem the Members of each House 

shall be entitled to mileage in going to and returning from 

the seat of government, which mileage shall not exceed Two 

Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2. 50) for every twenty-five (25) 

miles, the distance to be computed by the nearest and most 

direct route of travel, from a table of distances prepared 

by the Comptroller to each county seat now or hereafter 

to be established; no Member to be entitled.to mileage for any 

extra Session that may be called within one (1) day after the 

adjournment of the Regular or called Session.” 

Article 3.50 of the Texas Insurance Code provides the statutory 

authorization for group life insurance coverage and Article 3. 51 of 

the Texas Insurance Code provides the statutory authorization for 

group health, accident, hospitalization, etc., insurance. 

-2025- 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 4, (M-408) 

This opinion is further written on the assumption that your inquiry 

is directed to the payment by the State of premiums on such group life, 

health, accident, hospital, etc., insurance policies covering members 

of the Legislature and their dependent8 and as to how the same may be 

authorized or prohibited in light of the constitutional and statutory 

provisions hereinbefore quoted or referred to; and it is so limited. 

In holding that the city’s firemen and policemen’s pension plan was 

not vioIative of Constitutional Article I, Section 16; Article III, Sections 

44, 51-53; Article VIII, Section 3; and Article XVI, Section 6. prohibiting 

application of public funds to private purpose8 or gratuitous grants of 

such funds to individuals, the Supreme Court of Texas, in 1938, in the 

case of Byrd V. City of Dallas, et al, 118 Tex, 28. 6 S. W. 2d 738, held 

that the pension concerned was not a gratuity but was for a public purpose and a benefit conferred in consideration of services rendered. 

The Court stated: 

“It is academic to say the Legislature has power to pass 

any law which its wisdom suggeststhat is not forbidden by some 

provision8 of the Constitution (federal or state). If the pension 

provided for in this Act is a gratuity or a donation to the beneficiary, it is clearly forbidden by the fundamental law. On the 

other hand, if it is a part of the compensation of such employee 

for service8 rendered to the city, or if it be for a public purpose, then clearly it is a valid exercise of the legislative power.” 

The Byrd case was quoted by this office in Attorney General Opinion 

WW-731, upholding the constitutionality of Article 237211-z Vernon’s civil 
. . . . 

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 5 (M- 408) 

Statutes, which authorized the counties to pay all or a part of the 

hospitalization insurance of county official8 and employees. 

In Attorney General Opinion No. M-138, in authorizing the comptroller to pay certain group insurance premiums for his employees, 

this office stated as follows: 

“It has been heretofore held by this office that a state 

agency may contribute state funds in payment of the premiums of group insurance covering its employees under 

the provisions of gubsection (a) of Section 1 of Article 

3.51, of the Insurance Code as amended by Senate Bill 

294, Acts of the 60th Legislature (Attorney General;8 

Opinion No. M-125). Such is a Public governmental purpose benefitting the State. Opinion by the Justices, 30 

So. 2d 14 (Ala. Sup. 1947); Bowers v. City of Albuquerque, 

27 N. M. 291, 200 P. 421 (1921); Thompson v. City of 

Memphis, 147 Term. 658, 251 S. W. 46 (1923); People V. 

Standard Accident Ins. Co., 42 Cal. App. 2d 490, 108 PZd 

923 (1941). 

“We are in agreement with the reasoning of the Supreme 

Court of Mississippi in Mayor and Aldermen of City of 

Vicksburg v. Crinchlow, 196 Miss. 259, 16 So. 2d 749 (1944), 

wherein the statute concerning benefits to eovernmental 

employees was upheld as not being gratiuties and as not 

extra compensation, but being prospective it serves a 

beneficient and useful governmental function in its propensity for stimulating and regarding faithfu1 public services. ” 

The question i.1, then presented as to whether payment of such 

premiums would constitute a public purpose. If any grounds exist 

to support 8 finding that an act was for a’public Purpose”, 

-2027- 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 6 (bf- 408) 

then such act must be upheld. On the other hand, if no logic or 

reason can show such act to benefit the public, then such finding 

must be held not to be supported by any valid evidence. 

hr view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that there exists 

no constitutional inhibition as to the use of state funds and their 

application to group sickness and accident policy premium payments 

for legislators themselves. Such an expenditure se rves a beneficient 

and useful public or governmental function in helping to assure maximum state service and is directly related to the health and well being 

of state servants in the performance of their duties. This would 

not constitute an expenditure of public funds for private or individual 

purposes. The primary purpose or benefit accrues to the state, and 

the benefit to the individual is deemed as incidental and as not rendering the expenditure invalid or unconstitutional. 

We do not interpret such a benefit as additional “salary”. “per 

diem” or I’mileage”, as those terms are used in Article III, Section 

24 of the Constitution of Texas. This constitutional provision deal8 

only with those specific emoluments and operates as a limitation 

merely as to them. “galary” has been distinguished from “emOlument”, 

-202s 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page ,7 (M-408) 

the latter term being deemed more comprehensive. 67 CJS 326, Officers, 

Sec. 89. It is likewise shown that “compensation” includes salary but 

may not in all cases mean the same thing, depending upon the context 

in which it is used. It is our opinion that the meaning of “salary” as 

used in the constitution must be given its plain and ordinary literal 

meaning, that is, salary compensation, and does not necessarily 

include every benefit or perquisite arising from the possession 

of the office. The Constitution does not provide that no other 

emolument, perquisite, or benefit may be enjoyed by members of 

the legislature. Cf:,.Terrell v. King, 118 Tex. 237, 241, 14 S. W. 2d 

786, 791 (1929); State v. Aranson , 314 P 2d 849, 853 (Mont. Sup. 1957t 

Spearman v. Williams, 415 P2d 597 (Okla. Sup. 1966). 

Although we have answered your first question in the affirmative, we 

must answer question No. 2 in the negative. Payment of premium8 for 

sickness and accident insurance for dependents of legislators would not 

constitute an expenditure for a public purpose but would be an appropriation for private or individual purposes , and in violation of Article III, 

Section 51, and Article XVI, Section 6, Constitution of Texas. 

We must likewise answer questions 3 and 4 in the negative. Subsection (a) of Section 1, Article 3. 51 of the Insurance Code provides 

for such payments for members and their dependents but only as to 

hospital, surgical and/or medical expense insurance. Subsection (3) 

-2029- 

,,,, 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 8 (M-408) 

Section I of Article 3.50 contains no language which would authorize 

coverage for dependents of either state employees or other state 

personnel or officials insofar as life insurance is concerned. 

The object of life insurance is to “secure to the family of a person 

who is dependent on a salary or the income which ceases with 

h&s life,, a support on the death of the insured. “44 CJS 480, 

Insurance, Sec. 18. ” Thus, the pecuniary benefits to the 

benificiary flowing .therefrom are mainly for a private or individual purpose, unrelated to furthering the performance of the state 

legislator on the job. Payments for life insurance would, in 

our opinion, be unconstitutional, being in violation of Article 

III, Section 51, and Article XVI, Section 6, Constitution of 

Texas, since not authorized by the Constitution as required 

thereby.’ 

SUMMARY 

There is no constitutional prohibition against the 

use of state funds to make premium payments on group 

health and accident insurance policies for members 

of the legislature. 

- 2030- 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 9 (M-408) 

There is a constitutional prohibition against the use of 

state funds for payments of premiums on group life policies 

for legislators and the dependents of state legislators and 

for group health and accident policies covering the dependents of legislators. 

eneral of Texas 

Prepared by Roger Tyler 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

George Kelton, Co-Chairman 

Alfred Walker 

Neil Williams 

James S. Swearingen 

John H. Banks 

W. V. Geppert 

Staff Legal Assistant 

Hawthorne Phillips 

Executive Assistant 

-2031-