August 25, 1951
Hon. Allan Shivers OpinionNo. V-l.254 Governorof Texas Austin,Texas Re: Validityof "riders"in H.B. 426, Acts 52nd Legislature, 1951; the generalappropria- tion bill for the biennium Dear GovernorShivers: ending August 31, 1953.
In your original.requestfor an opinionyou asked that we studythe legalityand ccmstltutionality of the riders in House Bill 426, Acts 52nd Leg., KS., 1951, snd adviseyou as to our concluslonsas early as possible. In subsequentcon- ferencesyou Xndlcatedthat'ymsrs primarilyinters*ed in ss- curingthe rulesoflawapplicabls ln&tendningthslegality or constitutlomlltyof riders In an approprlatlon bill. You s'kated~thatin vlew'ofthe h&ding In Fulmo& v. Lane, 104 Tex. 499, l&C SiW. 405 (19l.l)and Att&ney GenerBl'sOpinionNo. V-1196 (1951)that the Governorhas no authorityto veto a non- appropriating ri$er In an appropriationbill, you are particular- lyconcernsdajmutthe growlngtendencyt~rd "governmen by riders'and desirea general*ateme& of the rules of law ap- plicableto rldsrsratherthan a specificruling on each sepa- rate rider. With this in n&&we shallpresentthe general rules.andrefer to specificriders only by'way of illusttition as to howthg generalrules are applied.
Gsne++y speaking,the constitution@. provision limitdngt&. scope of riders in gsneralappropriation bills and the power of the Legislaturewith regardthereto is Sec- tion 35 of.ArticleIII of the Te%as Constitution: In addition, Section1 of ArticleII is sometimesapplicable.
The historyof Section35 of ArticleIII and discus- slons,b$cont.emp+ry juristsgive an insightinto the evils by its adoption. Sect&n which ~rs intendedto be corrsctefl 35 p~oviaes:~
."Nobill, (exceptgeneralappropriation bills, which may embracethe various subj&ts ad accounts, for and on accountof which moneys are apprdprlated) shall containmore thsn one subject,which shallbe expressedin its title. But if any subjectshallbe embracedin an act, which shall not be expressedin Hon. Allan Shiv-eSS, PW3e 2 (v-1254)
the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof,as shsllnot be so expressed."
A similarprovisionoriginallyappearedin Section24 of ArticleVII of the *eras Constitutionof 1845 as follows:
"J?xerylawenectedbythe Legislatureshallem- brace but one object,sndthat shallbe expressedin the title."
Thiswasthe first time inTexas historythatanat- tempt was made to controlthe title and inclusiveness of legis- lation. The Constitutions of 1861, 1866, and 1869 carriedfor- ward the wordingwithoutchange.
.Indiscussingthebe&groundoftheTexasprovision cplef Justice0. M. 'Roberts, a memberof the 1866 Convention anda contempoFaryofthisperlod,said:
Yl!h%sprovl+xainthe Constitutionor~giaate~ in, andwas adoptedtopreventthe repetitionofamost flagwit cibue of legislativepower inthe State of Georgiainthe la¢ury. Its historylsbriefiy sketchedinenopinion&eliveredinthe Supremecourt of that State,a6 follows,to wit: *As to the objec- tionthat the act of l&is violative'ofthe17th sec. lst art. of the Constituti&of Georgie,becausel~e tit~"la at variancewith the body of the cd, I would obeervethatthetraditionaryhietorJrofthisclause ls,'thetit was insertedin the Constitutionof 1798, atthe'iwta&e of'GeneralJauk?sJackson, andthat its necessitywas suggestedby the Yaeoo act. 'That meiwrablemeasureof tti~li'th of Jsne, 1795; as ie&.lknown,wwe smugg&edthroughtheLegislature under the captian.ofsn act, "for the kymsnt of & let& State troopa,"and a declarationin its title of the right of the State to the unappropriatedterritory thereof,"for the protectionend supportof Its fron- tier settlements." (Mayorsnd Aldermanof Savannah v. The State of Georgia,4 Ga., 38.) This obnoxious act was repealed'thenext year, and the large grant of land to privateindividualsembracedin it declared. null and void for fraud in its enactent. This z&t becams stillmore notoriouslymemorableby its tibjed- matterbeing litigated,and its historybeing devel- oped in the report of the leadingcase