The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-09-28
THE REASONS WHY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL VETOED THE
PURCHASE OF PENITEN-
TIARY LANDS
With Money Borrowed From the School
Fund-The Act Under Which the Pur-
chase Was to Have Been Made
Is unconstitutional.

Following it the text of the attor-
ney generals opinion of the conVlct
farm purchase act addressed to Cen
w. r. Handy under date of Sept. IA,
and which has just been made public;
In reply to your favor of the 18th
inst, wherein you ask whether chap
ter "a, General Laws OF the Twenty
third legislature is in conflict with
Section 40, article OF the constitu-
tion of Texas, prohibiting the creation
of debts oy the state, beg to say the
act in question in substance provides
that the penitentiary board may with
the consent of the governor purchase
agricultural lands or improved farms
t) the amount of 100000 for the
purpose of establishing thereon
state farms and employing thereon
convict labor on state account; that for
making such purchases the fund nee
essary thereof shall be loaned by the
state board of education to the peni-
Tertiary board out Of the permanent
school fund on certificates of indebt-
edness issued by the penitentiary
board and countersigned by the gov
ernor, and that such loans shall bear
interest at the rate OF 5 per cent per
annum and the principal shall be
paid back to the school fund in 20 an
nual installments of Sic, 900 each. If
the penitentiary boar should make
the purchases contemplated by said
act the faith and credit Of the state
would be pledged and the state be-
come debtor to the permanent
school fund in the sum of $500, 900
principal together with interest there
on at the rate of per cent per annum.
This cannot be doubted. The act, 10
is true, provides that the purchase
shall be made by the penitentiary |
board, but for obvious reasons the
purchase is for the state ana provision |
is made tor the payment of the debt
thus created with the revenue of the
state The inhibition is against the
creation of q debt by or on behalf of
the state. The school fund is devoted
exclusively to the support and MAIN
tainance Of the public free schools
1t cannot be lawfully used
1OE any oVHoL puIpoeei thouSh
it may be invested in
securities named or provided for in
the constitution, article 7, section a.
In this case the state offers and is au.
thorized to borrow $500, 900 of the fund
and the question is, is 1t such a debt
as may be created? The power of the
state to create a debt is by section 40,
article of the constitution limited in
The following language: mo debt
shall be created by or on behalf of the
state except to supply casual deficien-
oies of revenue, repel invasion, sup.
press Instruction, defend the state in
war or pay existing debt, and the DEBT
created to supply deficiencies in reve-
nue. shall never exceed in the aggre-
gate at any one time 100000"
If then the debt proposed by SAID
act is permissible, this act IS valid.
We do not think, however, that the
purchase of agricultural and farming
lands for the purpose of utilizing con-
Wet labor thereon can be said to come
within the letter, spirit or meaning of
either class of cases herein it Is per-
missible for the state to pledge its
credit under the above quoted pro.
viei0n of the constitution. There can
II course be no pretense that the debt
is to be created, to repel invasion, sup
press insurrectiOu, or defend the state
in war. 1t is not proposed to create it
TO pay existing debt. There is
no casual deficiency in the revenue;
and the act exceeds the constitutional
limit of such debt 100000. The act is
an uudisguised proposition to create a |
debt, not for any OF the purposes NAM
ed in the constitution but to purchase
lands on which to employ convict
labor. The provision of the constitu.
tio1 is clear, plain and explicit and
limits the power of the legislature to
create any debt except for the purpose
therein enumerated and whatever
reason may exist for any other pur-
pose. we can not disregard the plain
provisions of the constitution. The
constitution can not be changed
6y the varying suggestions of public
policy in the management of state in
situations, but the provisions therein
contained having been inserted by
the people must remain the intlexible
aw until altered by them.
You are therefore respectfully ad-
vised that the act is unconstitutional
and void. Very respectfully,
MANN TRICE.
Office Assistant Attorney General.