any of the fundsappropriated in this Article, . . ."
Thisisa constitutionalriderbecause it dossnoxorethanlimit and restrictuse of the.fondsappropriatedby HouseBill 426.
The invalidrider readsas follows:
."AllState-ownedmotor-propelled passenger- carqing vehiclesunder the controlof any department, conmission,board, or otherStateagencyars hereby declarsdtobe nolongerneeded. Suchmotor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles shallbe sold in compli- - with and as providedfor in Article666, Revised Civil Statutesof Texas,as amended,or otherwiseas providedby law, not laterthan October1, 1951. . . . provided,however,that theseprovisionsof this Ssc- tion in regardto the sale and purchaseof motor- propelledpassenger-carrying vehiclesshallnot apply to the ExecutiveDepartment,StateHighwayDepartment, Departmentof Pulbic Safety,Cuss,Fish and Oyster Ccmds*ion, and the Railroad~ssion, providedthat th+RailroadConmlssionshallonlykeepandhavs in its possessionnot to.exceedtwenty (20)motor-propelled passenger-camyfngvehiclesand the Texas PrisonSystem shall only keep and have in Its possessionthosevehi- cles equippedwith two-wayradios. Noticesshallbe given in +M.ng to personsnow using said vehicles of the time and place they are goingto be sold &order that such persons may have an opportunityto bid on said motor-propelled passenger-carryingvehicles."
Ths forsgoingrider is not incidentaltothe appropria- tion of money or 'alimitationor restrictionof the use of money appropriatedby House Bill 426. It relatesto an entirelydif- ferent subjectand is generallegislation prohibitedby Section 35 of.ArticleIII of the Constitution.Att,orney Gsneral'sOpinion No..V-1253 (1951). This rider illustrates the reason for the con- stitutional~prohibition againstgenerallegislationin an appropria- tion bill. As pointedout in the above opinion,if this type of legislationwere valid, it would be possiblefor the Legislatureto providefor the sale of the State'sofficebuildingsor the public Eon. AlUmShivers, Page 13 (V-1254)
schoollands ina generalappropriationbill. Clearly,the sala of State-owsedautomobilesand other.propsrty,in the words of the SupremsCourt inMoore v. Sheppard,supra,is ona "dif- ferentand whollyurirelated subject"froivapproppiatingfunds. This rider is also unconstitutional becausethe captionof the bill gives no noticewhateverof its presencein the bill. At- torney General'8opinionv-l.253(1951).
As previouslypointedout, riders in an appropriation bill may sosetisk?s conflictwith Section1 of ArticleII of ths Texas Constitution,which provides:
DThepowersof the Coverumentof the Stats of Tees shallbe dividedinto three distinctdepartments, each of which shall be confidedto a separatebody of maglst.racy,to wit: Those which are Isgislativeto one; those which are Executiveto anotheriaudthosewhich ire Judicialto another;and no parson or collectionof perffons,being of one of these departments,shallexer- ciss auy power propsrlyattachedto either of the others, exceptin the instsncesherein expresslypermitted.?
The LegislativeBudgetBoard, composedofthe Speaker and four Ho&z membersappointedby him (includingChairmanof tlw Appropriations Comittee and Chairmenof Revenueand Tsxa- tionCommittee)audthe LieutenagtGovernorand four Senateem- krsappointed~hhim(inclubingCbsirmanofFinancc Committee and Chairmsnof StateAffairsCommittee)was createdby Senate sill 387,.Acts 51t3tLeg., R.S., l$+g,'ch.k@, 'p.,906(Art. 5kZgc,V.C.S.) to serve in an iuvestlgatoryaudadvisokycapa- city with respectto proposedappropriations.The Board'sfunc- tions Eve supplementary to those of the Board of Controland the Covernogas alreadyprescribedin , V.C.S. Article6&a ime amsndsdby Senate Bill 413, Acts 52n8 m., R.S., 1951, ch. 332, p. 572.
There is no constitutioual questioninvolvedin creationof such au advisorylegislativebudget conmittee. 1' But the same Legislature,in a rider to its generalappropria- tion bill for the Beard for Texas State Hospitalsend Special Schools,went furtherin subjectingthe expenditureof trans- ferredfunds and unexpendedbalancesby the Texas State Board for Hospitalsand'Spedal Schoolsto the approvalof the
il.J~Ter+ll v. King, 118 Tex. 237, 14 S.W.2d786 (1929). Eon. Allan Shivers,Page 14 .(v-1254)
I2 LegislativeBudgetBoard.
In like vein, the Fifty-secondIegislaturehas appended severalsimilarridersto its generalappropriation bill, as fol- lows:
The LegislativeBudgetCommitteebid is