salariesto thosewho consumsalcoholicbeverageswhilsondutyorwhoen- gage in politicalactivitiesare legitimateswans of inmuing that the purposeoft&s appropriationwillnotbs defeatedand thsnoneywastedonenployeaswho carryonunauthorlsedactivi- ties daringthe time for which thay 85e bain~ p$dto'attendto t&s stats'sbus~ss. IntheTexasLegislative'Manual.(1~), page 263, this typi of provisionIs referredto as "a condition attachedto au appropriation, upon failureto complywith which the appropriatldnwillcease to be effective." See also pags 224.
.Approprfationbillriderswhich violateSsctlon35 of ArticleIIXhave beenmore fr&ua&lydiscusssdbythe dourts: snd the AttorneyGsneral'thanthos,awhich are propsrlywithinthe scopeof'suclibills. The majority of l&s rider.6which have been strichurarethosewhichattempttomodiiyoramanda~ral statute. It is well settledin this State that a rider attached to a aeneralaimronriationbill cannotrewal. nodifyor amend an existingg&r& law. State v..Steele;r(-Tex.203 (18&Z); Llndenv. Finley,92 Tex. 451, 4.9'S.W.578 (l&J); Attorney GeneaX's OpinionsNo. 1745 (19171,2787 (19291,2965 (19351, 2970 (1935);0-445 (1g39j1. o,-1837~i1940),~0-2573(wo);-0.~5329 (1g43),v-412 (1947),and v-894 (1949).
In Statev. Steele, supra,Linden Y. Finlsy,supra,am AttornsyGeneral'sOginions1745, 2787, 2965, mpra, it was held that gnsral statutesfirinS salariesor fees couldnot be amen& by a generalappropriation bill. Riders providingfor uss or transferof specialfunds contraryto generalstatuteswhich pro- vided for a differentdepositor use were hsldunconstitutional by AttorneyGeneral'sOpinions2970 (1935),O-5329(19431,and V-412 (1947). A rider requiringthree years residenceinTexas beforebeing adatittedto the State TuberculosisSanatoriumwhen Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 11 (V-1254)
the generalstatuterequiredonly citizenshipin Texas was held invalidin AttornsyGeneral's OpinionO-2573 (194'3).
Generallegislationattemptedin a'generalappropria- tion bill, even thoughnot desiguedto modify or amend au exist- ing statute,was condemnedby the SupremeCourt of Texas in Moore v. Sheppard,supra. In that case the Legislaturshad provi&Z-- by rider iu the appropriation bill that the Clerks of the Courts of Civil Appeals shoulddepositall unofficialfees collected ,bythsm in the StateTreasuryand that they shouldnot be paid their salariesuntil and unless they filed au affidavitshoving compliancetharewith.Moors refusedto complyand broughtsuit to requirepaymentof his salary. The Couxtrenderedjudgmsnt in his favor upon the groundsthat the rider attemptedto fir fees of officeand that this was a subjectof geuerallegisla- tion separateaudapart fromappropriatingmoneyandtherefors unconstitutional.The Court said:
"Phatthe fixingof officialfees is a matter of generallegislation, and is a *subJect'of generallegis- lationwithin the IssaIling of ArticleIII, Section35, above, cannotbs questioned. . . . n. . . that portionof the AppropriationBill setting out for ths firsttime mattersnot germansthereto, and dealingwith gsnexallegislationon the different sndwhollymrelated 'subject of fees chargedbypstl- tiohersfor unofficialcopies,andprsscribingths dis- positionof such fees, is in conflictwith the mandate of Article III, Section35, and is unconstitutional. . . ."
A similarrulingwasmads bythe AttorneyGeneralof Texas in OpinionO-445 (1939)writtenby former.As6ociat.e Justice James P. Hart concerninga rider which prohibitedState employees from acceptingor using passes Issuedby transportation agencies. In this opinionit was said:
'The anti-passprovisionsof the appropriation bill do not constitutea regulationof the manner in which the sums appropriatedthereinshallbs expended. If construedas an impliedamendmentof the general statutesprohibitingthe issuanceof free passes by transportation agencies,said provisionswould be in- valid since a generallaw'maynot be amendedby provi- sions of a generalappropriation bill. See State v. Steels,57 Tex. 200; Lindenv. Finley,92 TeX. 451."10 9 This riderwas also held unconstitutional becauseit was not coveredby the captionof the act. Hon..AllanShivem, Page l2 (V-1254)
Examplesof valid and invalidridersin HouseBill 426, the generalappropriation bill for the bieuniumendingAugust 31, 1953, may be found in Subdivision(15) of Section2, ArticleIII, relatingto State-ownedautomobiles.The valid riderprovides: ,I . . . No motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehi- cle may be purchasedwith