Texas Attorney General Opinion: MS-88 Page: 2 of 3
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
r
-tHon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 2 (MS-88)
You state that you have been requested by the Pres-
ident of the Sabine River Authority to issue a warrant in
the amount of $30,000 payable to the Authority when the ap-
propriation becomes available on September 1, 1953. You have
asked us to advise you whether you are authorized to issue
the warrant in a lump sum payable to the Authority, to be dis-
bursed by it in a manner other than by the passing of claims
for warrants through the State Treasury.
You have stated that an appropriation in the origi-
nal act creating the Sabine River Authority (Sec. 28, Ch. 110,
Acts 51st Leg., R.S., 1949) was paid over to the Authority to
be disbursed as it saw fit, but that an appropriation by the
52nd Legislature (Ch. 499, Acts 52nd Leg., 1951, at p. 1421)
was disbursed by warrants payable to the claimants of the Au-
thority and not in a lump sum payable to the Authority itself.
The act creating the Sabine River Authority contem-
plates that this agency will have a depository and will dis-
burse funds in the depository by warrants drawn and signed by
its authorized officers of employees. The State Auditor is
required to make an annual audit of the accounts of the dis-
trict and of the depository. Secs. 4, 59 7, 9 Ch. 110, SU-
pa. It is clear that money coming to the utority from
sources other than by legislative appropriation out of the
State Treasury are to be kept in its depository and disbursed
by the Authority upon its own warrants.
The appropriation contained in Section 28 of Chapter
110 read as follows:
"There is hereby appropriated, and there shall
be pad to said district out of the General Fund not
otherwise appropriated, the sum of Twenty-five Thou-
sand Dollars ($25,000), . . . The district shall
repay said amount to the State out of the proceeds
of the first bonds issued by the district." (Emphasis
added.)
This appropriation was paid over to the Authority to
be disbursed by it rather than by warrants on the State Treas-
ury payable to its claimants. We are in agreement that this
procedure was the proper one. We think the Legislature intendN
ed that the appropriation, which was in the nature of an ad-
vance or loan, was to be turned over to the Authority for dis-
bursement through its regular channels.
The appropriation contained in the 1951-53 appropria-
tion act read:
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: MS-88, text, August 21, 1953; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth275954/m1/2/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.