Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1965 )

THEATTOWM~Y GENEWAL
OFTEXAS
Honorable Dean Martin Opinion No. C-544
County Attorney
Qrayson County Courthouse Re: Reconsiderationof Attorney
Sherman, Texas General's Opinion No. C-473
(July 28, 1965) concerning
the constitutionalityof
House Bill 119, Acts 1965,
59th Legislature,authorizing
the appointment of a juvenile
officer and assistant juvenile
Dear Mr. Martin: officer for Qrayson County.
At your request, we have reconsideredthe opinion
written to you on July 28 1.965,and designated as Attorney
General's Opinion No. C-4+3. We have concluded that such
opinion should be withdrawn and the following substituted
therefor.
You have requested the opinion of this office con-
cerning the validity of House Bill No. 119 Chapter 198 Acts
1965 59th Legislature which authorizes the Commlsslon~rs
Cour& of Orayson Count; to appoint a juvenile officer and an
assistant juvenile officer.
Sections 1 and 2 of House Bill No. 119 provide as
follows:
"Section 1. The commissionerscourt of
Grayson County may appoint a juvenile officer
and an assistant juvenile officer.
"Sec. 2. The commissionerscourt may
pay the duvenile officer a salary of not more
than $500 per month and may allow him not more
than 10 cents per mile for transportationex-
penses when he supplies his own automobile.
The commisslonerscourt may pay the assistant
uvenlle officer a sglary of not more than
4400 per month and may allow him not more than
10 cents per mile for transportationexpenses
when he supplies his own automobile."
-2615-
i
Hon. Dean Martin, page 2 (C-544)
House Bill No. 119 Is limited in Its applicationto
only one county. Therefore, we shall direct our attention to
the question of whether it Is constitutionalunder the provisions
of Section 56 of Article III of the Constitutionof Texas which
provides in part as follows:
"The Legislature shall not, except as
otherwise provided in this Constitution,pass
any local or special law, authorizing:
. , .
"Regulatingthe affairs of counties, cities,
towns, wards or shcool districts;
t,
. . .
"Creating offices, or prescribingthe
power? and duties of officers, In counties,
. . .
Matters relating to the welfare of minors are of
statewide concern rather than of a local or county nature.
Jones v. Alexander, 122 Tex. 328, 59 S.W.2d 1080 (1933); Lamon
v. Ferguson, 213 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.Civ.App.1948, no history-r
In Lamon v. Berguson, a statute creating the Juvenile
Board of Burnet County and making the District Judge of the 33rd
Judicial District a member thereof was upheld against the con-
tention that it was a local or special law regulating the affairs
of counties. The comments of the Court at page 88 of 213 S.W.2d
are particularlyrelevant to the question before us.
"The only remaining question, presented
by appellant, Is whether or not H.B. 257 is
a local or special law 'regulatingthe affairs
of countlest within the meaning of art. III,
Sec. 56 of our Constitution.
"If the duties devolving upon the District
and County Judges by the terms of H.B. 257 are
to be performed upon behalf of the State and not
on behalf of the counties as entities distinct
from the State, then H.B. 257 is not a local or
special law regulating the affairs of counties
even though its application is not state-wide
but is restricted to certain localities.
-2616-
. .
Hon. Dean Martin, page 3 (C-544)
Stephensen v. Wood, 119 Tex. 564, 34 S.W.2d
246; Harris County v. Crooker, Tex.Civ.App.
224 S.W. 792, affirmed 112 Tex. 450 248 S.W.
g,;. Lytle v. Ralff, 75 Tex. 128, 15 S.W.
"'The welfare of minors has always been
a matter of deep concern to the,state.! Jones
v. Alexander, 122 Tex. 328, 59 S.W.2d 1080,
1081.
"In that case the court held constitutional
art. 5139, R.C.S. 1925, Acts 1917, p. 27, Acts
1921, p. 273 which provided that in any county
having a population of one~hundred thousand or
over the Judges of the several District and
Criminal District Courts of such county together
with the County Judge, should constitute a juve-
nile board, and fixed the annual salary of each
of the District and Criminal District Judges, as
members of such board, at $1,500., H.B. 257 Is
an amendment of art. 5139.
"The purpose of H.B. 257 Is the same as
the purpose of art. 5139. Both laws provide
means for promoting the welfare of minors, a
matter in which the State at large is Interested.
"The State has the right to designate and
make use of District and County Judges as agents
of the State in discharge of a state duty and to
compensate them for the performance of this work.
Jones v. Alexander, supra.
"There is probably no more pressing domestic
problem confronting the American people today
than that of coping with juvenile delinquency.
Our Legislature, has as indicated by H.B. 257
and other laws, properly interested itself in
the solution of this problem, and the courts
should not, in the absence of some'compelllng
specific consti~tutionalprovision,undo,its
efforts."
-261?-
Hon. Dean Martin, page 4 (C-544)
The qualificationsand duties of juvenile officers
are prescribedby Article 5142 of Vernon's Civil Statutes.
"Such officers shall have authority and
it shall be their duty to make investigations
of all cases referred~to them as such by such
Board; to be present in court and to represent
the interest of the juvenile when the case is
heard, and to furnish to the courtand such
Board any informationand assistance as such
Board may require, and to take charge of any
child before and after the trial and to per-
form such other services for the child as may
be required by the court or said Board, and
such juvenile~officersshall be vested with
all the power and authority of police officers
or sheriffs incident to their offices.
"The clerk of the court shall when practicable,
notify such juvenile officer when any juvenile
is to be brought before the court. It shall be
the duty of such juvenile officer to make in-
vestigatlon of any such case, to be present in
court to represent the interest of the juvenile
when the case is tried, to furnish to such court
such informationand assistance as the court may
require and to take charge of any juvenile'before
and after the trial as the court may direct. . . ."
Thos,epersons appointed pursuant to House Bill No.
119 would,be charged with these duties. Here, as in Lamon v.
the Legislature has addressed Itself to a matter of
s a ewi e concern in authorizing the appointment of persons to
FP=2
act in the interest of juvenile welfare within Orayson County.
Their duties are performed in furtherance of~the vital interests
of the state as ,awhole and the mere fact that the operation
of House Bill No. 119 or the duties of the persons authorized
to be appointed therein is restricted to a particular county
does not make the Bill,a local or special law within the mean-
ing of Section 56 of Article III of the Constitutionof Texas.
Sullins v. City of Roma, 336 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App.1959,
no history); see Travis County v. Matthews, 235 S.W.2d 691
(Tex.Clv.App.1951, error ref. n.r.e.).
. -
,
Hon. Dean Martin, page 5 (C-544)
You are hereby advised that in our opinion House
Bill No. 119, Acts 1965, 59th Legislature, page 409 is consti-
tutional.
SUMMARY
Attorney General's Opinion No. C-473 is
hereby withdrawn and this opinion substituted
In lieu thereof.
House Bill No. 119 Acts 1965, 59th
Legislature,Chapter 196, page 409, is consti-
tutional, as it is not a local or special law
regulating the affairs of counties within the
meaning of Section 56 of Article III of the
Constitutionof Texas.
Very truly yours,
WAGGONER CARR
Attorney General
WOS:mkh:ml
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Scott Qarrlson
J. C. Davis
Kerns Taylor
Gordon Cass
APPROVRD FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: T. B. Wright
-261+