The opinion
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
uay 17, 1939
II0n . 3. J. Dartez, Lay 17, 1939, Page 2
23 of this Act provides a registration fee of &lO.OO, and Section 20
thereof providns (I renowal fee of i2.50 payable annually on or before
the’firot day of ?:over.bcr. Lection 27 of the Texas harbor Law
crates the *8tate Board of Barber Examiners’ sund,v with the follow-
lan .-uage :
I . The secretary ahall keep a record of’ all pro-
ceedln&*of the Board and shall be the custodian of all
such records and shall receive aad receipt for all money
collected by the Board. All money so received shall be
immediately deposited with the [atate Treasurer, v.ho shall
credit same to a special fund to be as ‘state Board of 3ar-
ber ixanin?rs Fund,’ which money shall be drawn from said
special fund upon claims made therefor by the aoard to tho
Coffiptroller; and if found correct, to be approvod by him
and vouchers issued therefor, and countersigned nnd peid.by
the State Treasury, -.hlch special fund is hereby appropriated
for the-purpose of carrying out all the provisions of this
Act. That al:nually at the close of business on ::uqst 31
of each year a cor;plete report of tho buslnzes transaction
by the Board showing all receipts and disburs-ments skull
be made by the aoard to tho Governor of the Ltate of Texas.
. . ”
Unlike rest of our statutory special Funds, the balance of
funds tLr_reinat the end of the clven fiscal year, cvPr and above
sdrinistrative expenses, does not pass into the Cencrsl Fund, b;lt
rerains In the Ltate Board of’ barber ::xaminers’ E’und to accumulate
fro- year to year a~contlnulng fund subject to biennial approprla-
tions. But in answering your inquiries, we Lusti look to the last
biecnial daportzcntnl appropriation bill, rather than to this
blanket appropriation mtida by Section 27, Article 734a, ?enal Code,
of al; moneys in the .;tatc ljoard of tiarbcr : xcn?inersl Zund for the
purpose or carrying cut the provisions OP the Texns %rbzr Low,
because the operation of the latter enactment, as m appropriation
masure, 1s linltcd, by Article 8, Tection 6, Constl:ution of ‘iaxes,
to two years from the date of its enactment in lS2S.
?~cnate Bill !:o. 138, Chapter 504, Act? i.egular Zession,
45th i.cgisl?turs, being the dopnrtzcntal appro?rintiGn bill for the
years ending ;A.ul:ust 31, 1038, and Anust 31, 1’:3S, pr0vidi.s for the
State Board of Zarbcr . xamluers, a budgeted appropriation fcr
salaries and r~lctanance expenses in the total sun of ,62,420.00
for each of ebld years, and provides additionally as follows:
753
B4@pmi4
..Y ,..
Ron, X. J. Cartez, Pay 17, 1939,. Page 3
“The foregoing amount8 for the &ate hoard of Barber
I,xamlners arci hereby ,approprlated out of the Ltate Board
of Barber z.xamlners aund, composed of any b~lanceo on hand
at the end of any preceding fiscal’ year and sny fees and
other receipts collected by soid board and deposited in
said fUIId during and for each of the fiscal yc,:ars ending
August 31, 1938, and Au:~uot 31, 1939, less transfers to
the Ganeral Fund as provided by Statute and/or this appro-
priation Act. There Is appropriated and ordered trans-
ferred ~Z.ighteen Hundred Ge;enty-five Doll&r8 por year
from the State board of Barber ~xaminc~rs Fund tci tbe
General Revenue Fund for the purpose or paying the cost
oi governmental scrviccs rendered to @aid Board by the
Stata Departments supported by the General Fund.”
Answering your second question first, it is our opinion
that same should receive a negative answer. k ruling by this
Department that the State Board of zarber Lxamlnors could Issue
vouchers whereon warrants could lawtully issue, to cover salaries
and admlnlotretive expenses l~ncurred during the fiscal year ending
August 31, 1939, but to be paid from moneys coming into ‘the state
Board of Barber Examiners * zaa from annual renewal fees after the
termination of such flsoal year and during the succeeding flsc3l
year, would be tantamount to saying that the above cited dnportnental
appropriation bill should be effective for a lonqcr term than two
years, in contravention 0T Article 8, jectlon 6, Constitution of
‘i’exas, providing, in part, that no appropriation OS money shall ts
made for a longer term than two years.
In addition to this constitutional inhibition, he have
Article 12, Hevised Civil Statutes, providing, in part, that “the
fiscal year of the State shall termioate on the 3let day of Aupust
OS each year and appropriations of the utate Government shall con-
form thereto.”
Boreover, we have the express language of tbc above cited
departmental appropriation b111, providing, in connection u,ith the
budget for the t‘tate Board of Sarbcr Lxaniners, that the ar,.ounts so
specifically ltezized are appropriated out of the state Board of Ber-
ber txaniners’ irund, “cox>csed of any balnncea on hand at the end of
any preceding fiscal year and any fees and other receipts collected
by said board end deposfted in said fund during and for each of the
fiscal years ending iiup;ust 31, 1938, aud ;iuEust 31, 1939 ,‘I etc.
!:anifeotly, annual renewal fees poyuble :Lvcmber 1, 1939, and ollo-
catcd -t,o’t,he State Board of Darbcr Examiners’ <and after Xu{:uZt :jl,
1939, u.ould not be v.ithln the foreg;lng appropriation, so as to be
subject to warrants dravin pursuant to said appropriation for the
bieanlux ending hugust 31, 193Q.
f
eon; tZ.J. Daitez, Kay 17, 1939, Page 4
Our negetive answer to your second question also finds ..
support ln former-oulnions of this Department, one of v.hlch 1s a
letter o.>lnion of dtii.8 December 16, 1931, written by ilon. Elbert
Looper, th;.n Assistant Attorney General, end direoted to iion. C. v.
~2crral1, Chalnaan, Lailroad Commission of ‘Texas.
‘By your first question you ask If the L;tate Board of Dar-
bar Xramlners oan operate Flthout requesting any aarrants to be
issued against the Ztote Board of Liarbcr .kxemlnersQ r*lmduntil such
time as there shall have bosn aolloated sufficient revenue to take
care of cutstandlng obl$gatlons, and this mii:ht Cuirly be Interpreted
as a general statement OS your second question, and embraaed Eithln
its mope. Eowever, assuming thst you xean to inquire If the Board
may lawfully incur oblicatlons during a certain fiscal year, and
issue harrants th.:refor against future revenuee r.hlch it is anti-
clpated will come into the State Board of Earber i.xaeiners’ i+‘und
during that f iscel year, we answer such question affirmatively.
The case of Perguson, et al v. Johnson, et al, 67 S. F.
(Zd) 372, is authority for the proposition that obligations wq be
incurred and liabilities contracted for during any fiscal year by
boards and commissions oven though Sunds to. pay warrants drawn in
payment thereof are not at the time actual1 in the sp:?cial fund ln
question, but It is reasonably antic ~~~t~~~~s~~~~~~~e~~:~nues
sufficient to ceet such obligat=; w
funds during the same fiscal year. 3ut as ne reed this case, it
does not m::!en to sapthat- or com?Qission ceri enticlpate pro-
speatlve revenues for the succeeding flocnl year or nny other fi5ot31
year, except the one during which the obllgotlons and expenses were
incurred, and our answer to your first question is so limited.
Yours very truly
BY
PbX:N
hPPRO’iF?D
ATTOiCXNEY
GC:;.RAL 07 l25XA.S