and are dedicatedto the paymentof the expensesnecessaryto efficientlyadminister HonorableD. C. Greer, Page 4 (O-5329)
the Certifioatsof Title Law.
The State Highwayfind properis a specialfund within the State treasurywhich derivesits revenuesfrommotor vehicle registrationfees and gasolinetaxes, and is by law set aside specificallyfor the oonstruoticn and maintenanoaof a system of Stats highways. Vernon'sRevisadCivil Stat- utes, Article 6674,Article 6674q-5,Article 6694. The #l75,000.00appropri- ation is phrasedin terms of its proviso. A provisois oonstivedin oonnec- tion with the sectionor alausewith which it forms a part, Its office or fun6ticnis to limit or restrictthe meaning of that which has gone before. It is to be given effect,if possibla,accordingto the clearmeaning of the languageused. TidewaterOil Co. v0 Sean, (Civ,Apps.) 148 S.W. (2) 184.
The sectionof the rider to which the $lT5,000~JCappropriation is appendedappropriatesall mvenues, fees and grantsin aid receivedfor creditto the State HighwayFund, togetherwith the balanceon hand in the fund, to purposeswhioh do not inoludethe expenditureof suoh moncym for the operationof the Certificateof Title Act. The lsnguageof the #175,000.00 appropriation beginswith the words "Provided,however,. . ." indioating clearlythe legislativeintent to imposea limitationor restrictionupon that which it had dons in the sentencepreceding. The provisois tc be oonstrued as limitingthe authoritypreviouslyoonferredby the apFopriation of the whole HighwayPund, by providingthat #175,000.00of such fund shouldbe de- voted to purposesnot includedin the appropriation made by the first sentence, to-wit,to the administration of the Certifioateof Title Act* The first sentenceof this paragraphof the rider can have the legal effectof appropriating only that part of the HighwayFurd which is not dedicat- ed by law to purposesother than the purposesfor which the appropriation there- in made, for the reasonthat the terms of existinglaw may not be changedby an appropriationbill. State V~ Steele,57 Tex. 203; Lindenv. Pinley,92 Tax. 454; Conleyv. Daughtersof the Republio,151 S. Ir.883; Opinionsof the Attorney General,1916-18,p. 119) 1928-30,p. 209, Letter Book 60, p0 24; 1934-46,p. 46; OpinionNO. O-2573. The appropriation in the first sentenaecan not be made out of that part of the HighwayPund which is composedof fees depositedtherein, under the terms of Section67 of the Certificateof Title Act, for such fees ly such Section,though depositedin the HighwayFund,arc dedicatedby that Sec- tion to the paymentof expensesof administration of the Certificateof Title Act.
Porthe same reason,though the Legislatureby the provisoindicated clearlyan intentto subjectthe entire HighwayFund to the paymentof the #l76,000.00appropriatedto the Cerbifioateof Title Division,since that portion of~thefund not composedof fees colleotedunder Section57 of the Certificateof TitleAct oan not by the appropriation bill bs devotedto the purposeof adminis- tering the Csrtifioateof Title law, the provisois valid only to appropriatethe #175,000.00from that part of the Hi~hvayFund composedof fees collectedunder Sectuon57 of the Certificateof Title Act.
The resultis that we have two appropriationsfor the Certificateof Title DivisionPrQn Certificateof Title fees in the HighmayFunds Hon. D. C. Greer, Page 5 (O-532.9)
1. The provisolimitingthe appropriation to $175,000,00.
2. The paragraphfollowingthe proviso,which authorizesexpenditureof suf- ficientCertifioateof Title fees out of the HighwayFund to administerthe Aot. Since there is a direot conflictbetweenthese two provisions, which can not be resolvedby the applioationof any other rule of statutory construction, we must apply the