Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1948 )

PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEY GENEHAL
I&Q T. Y,e E@yd Opinion No, V-116
Ceunty &ldJwr
Lubbock’county Re: Authority of county to jointly
LulPback, Texae erect with a city an itinerant
Mexican labor camp building
in Lubbock.
Yeuir I&tsr requesting an opinion states:
YI’he Chamber of Commerce of this city ap*
pointed a cemmittae to call on the City and County
G~ies,J*er$ fo,r an appropriation of approximate-
‘IF ````````~ %+ build an t’tiaerant l&xicaff lrbo~ camp
`````` jn ~$heGity of Lslbbock. The Iinp~poaieof such
bi&&g weuld be a gathering place for Lat’m Ameri-
can laborers, such building to be equipped to care
for all sani,tary conditions. Another purpose would
he $Q have the,se laborers in one place r$ther than
havs ithem afrttexed over the cityJI cr@&g a h+kgilW
haLla``& and that the farmers have of& one place to
cptie tp Mye them to gather their c&on) feed and
othe,r ,~fop`` It is proposed that the ma&&nance of
#e&l b&&ing would be cared for sot of the City-
Y;onz$y W&Fare fund, an associati,on creafed by the
0th and Ceunty jointly for the purpose of relief to
%hQ unem$loyed and needy people,
“The City Commission appropriated $3,250.06
provided the County Commission would provide a
like amount out of County funds. Will you, therefore,
please advise me whether:
M1. The Commissioners’ Court of Lubbock
County would have the authority to spend or appro-
p&ate county funds for the erection of such buildings,
Hon. J. Y. Boyd, Page 2 (V-716)
or would have the authority to pay rent out of
county funds for a building of this nature.
“2. Would the Commissioners’ Court of
: Lubbock Ccunty have the authority to appropriate
county funds for such building under the terms of
Article 4434.
“3. If the Commissioners’ Court should
pass an order appropriating $3.250.00 to match
the City of Lubbock out of any county funds, would
I as County Auditor have the authority to signwa-
rants in payment of the funds in case the Court
has no authority to appropriate such funds.”
The Texas Constitution prohibits the spending of money
for the benefit of a ‘particular class or individual except under cer-
tain circumstances not present here. Art. III, Sec. 52; Art. XVI,
Sec. 6; and related articles. These articles are applicable to coun-
ties. Bexar County v. Linden, 110 Tex. 339, 220 S.W. 761. In that
case. the Supreme C&rt wrote:
“Its evident purpose is to deny to the Leg-
islature any power to grant or ts autherize the
grant of public meney to all ethers (than veterans,
etc.) absolutely,
“The giving away of public money,~,its ap-
plication to other than strictly governmental pur-
poses, is what the provision is intended to guard
against. The prohibition is a positive and abso-
lute one except as to a distinctive class te whom
the State is under a sacred obligation.”
Further. Section ‘6 of Article XVI provides that the Leg-
islature shall have no power to appropriate money to establish an
Immigration Bureau or for the purpose of bringing immigrants into
this State. Since the Legislature is without such power, it could not
authorize the counties to do what it is itself prohibited from doing.
And, of course. the Constitution prohibits expenditures not author-
ized by law. Art. III, Sec. 53.
. .
He+ J. Y. Boyd, Page 3 (V-716)
‘fkrkp &wurLprovisions, the Coudp gemrally weuld not
be m&h&aed 0, orset build~s for tk use of any particular ckss
M persrrz#pl--*@ %ey be r&Are84 employees, iikersnt Latin- ”
&ttticur *aorktra, ex USy o%tr such gsoup. I&@ redd it a&be*-
is* the erection OS priv8ta health end sanitary f8cilities solely for
it&nerant wrrkets et my other group of that character. Thus the
County Attorney ef Nueces County was advised by the Attorney Gen-
e,rel On Februup 2, 1940, that ffueces County we8 not rutboriaed to
pua%kase aad operate what had been a Federal Transient Labor
Camp. A aopy of &et letter is enclosed,
cbn the other hand. the LeCsleture is not prohibited
iran rutkviniaf counties from erectingsuck public buildings and
imprevcmu&# a6 are necessary for public he&h and smithon.
It undoubtedly hao rue& power se lon& as such itams constitute
eewi* buaiaoss.
.
The Gonetbtution providaa that t&e county should act,
ia tit gtnerd icprd, threugh its CormWssiantrs'Ceurt ‘which
sh8ll tsercise **wars and jurisdictioix over ~4% ctuat* business,
eo ia coaterredby this Constitutien and l&wa of the Stete . . On
Art. v, Sec. l&
The general rule, as laid down by ouc ~tturte~ is that
tb ceumtier have ox&y such powers atid duties as are prescribed
by t&e CwuWtMem and r+aWes. ,LaekiaS general powers, they
mw M r b r mlnk au&4 ads as 8x8 smeeificmU* lnwrur8kd. As
* CWe+ emes dtb like heldlqs are: %&&&I( Cima(q--v,``~s
Cetdy. 90 Tu, 6O3, 40 &W, 403; &wlexmon vt Wood, 137 Tex. 201,
152 S.W,(%d) lO.4: Et- v* Cumybeli, 48 S.W. 515; Reper v, HalI
(Ci~,App,)~ 2BO S*W. 28% Hsrris,Comty v. Kaiser (Civ.&p,, writ
r&d,), 23 S,W.(td) m O.K. LS. A,Ry. V- Uvalde Ceunq (CkApp.,
k-it tef’d. w+o*nb), 16?.AW,(Zd) 305; VonAom=berg y. Love#&Sv.
Appa,. writ ref’d), 173 SOW. 508: U Tern. Jur. 563, Gem&es,, 8 $6; &%d.
p* 632, 8 95; 20 C.J.S, M06.
Hon. J. Y. Beyd. Page 4 (V-716)
In Edwards County v. Jennings (Civ.App., 1895), 33 S.W.
585, the County contracted for Jennings to furnish a water supply
for county bG1ding.s and for public watering troughs. The court up-
held the County’s power to contract for water for county purposes,
But as to the public troughs and private piping rights which the court
held were unauthorized, the court said:
$4
. . . but to supply the general public with
water . . . (is) a very different question . . .
Counties, being component parts of the State, have
nb powers or duties except these clearly set forth
in the Constitution and statutes,”
Tlae case was affirmed (89 Tcx. 618, 35 S.W. 1053). but on other
grounds, And the facts did not involve issues of public health The
case is therefore illustrative of the limited powers of counties, but
is net controlling on issues of public health here involved.
The general powers and duties of the Commissioners’
Court are set out in Article 2315, R.C.S. The only power approach-
ing the facts herein is prescribed in Section 7:
“&evide and keep in repair court houses,
jails, and all necessary public bujldings.”
This section was construed in Dancy
-- v. Davidson (Civ.
App., 1944, writ refused), 183 S.W.(Zd) 195. It was there stated:
“By the term ‘public building’ . . e is mt,ant
a building used primarily for public or govern-
mental purposes, that is, to house public or gov-
ernmental agencies.”
The court there held that a building to house various
countyagencies including a public health unit, agricultural ‘agent,
branch office of-the County Assessor and Collector of Taxes, etc.,
h&d be authorized. But we do not understand #at the Labor
Camp in question wouid be a building of such calibre.
The sole statute from w#ie tfir authority may be drawn
to perform the acts in question is Article 4434, R.C.S., cited by you,
which provides:
. .
I-Ion, J. Y. Boy& Paso 5 (V-716)
“The munfc(pal authorities of towns and
cities, ad commi8rizners courts of the coun-
ties wherein such ‘towns and cities are situated,
may co-operate with each other in making such
improvements connected with said towns, cities
and counties as,said autheritics and courts may
deem necessary to improve the publid health and
to promote efficient sanitary regulations; and, by
mutual arrangement, they may provide for the
construction zf said improvements and the pay-
ment therefor.”
The provisions of Article 4434 are broad, Yet they may
not extend beyond t&e mentioned pr@+Aaons of the Texas Cznztitu-
ti~n, Under the qucsti6ns you submit, it is difficult to draw a rigid
line between tkat which is private in character, as affects itinerant
workers and their employers, and that which is public in character
and intended fer the health and sanitation of the public as a whole.
Construing the two tegether, it is cur conclusion that the
Couxty and City would be authorized to cooperate and expend funds
in the erection of public toilets and related sanitary facilities, sew-
erage and garbage disposal units, drinking fountains, and items of
similar nature whick could be used by itinerant workers and others
of the general public. These measures would certainly tend tomin-
imize the incidence or spread of any disease. They would tend to-
ward a general cleanliness of the community and should bring about
a resultant increase in the chances for general public health. In
this regard, the statute gives local authorities broad discretion “to
provide for the construction of said improvements and the payment
therefor&?’ Under such ciroumctazces our Supreme Court has
stated:
‘Where a right is conferred or obligation
imposed on said (Commissioners’) Court, it has
implied authority to exercise a broad discretion
to accomplish the purposes intended.- Anderson
v. Wood, 137 Tex. 201. 152 S.W.(2d) 10847
--
_
’ Tm the same effect are Madison ( *ty v. Wallace,
Coun 118 Tex. 279,
15 S,W.(Zd) 535; Dodson v. Marshall ClvApp.) ll8 S.W.(Zd) 621.
623: and El Paso=*<. *?v.App.), 106 S.W.(2d) 393.
--
. .
Hon. J. Y. 3oyd, Page 6 (V-716)
Whether improvements which are to be constructed under Article
4434 are necessary to improve public health and to promote effi-
cient sanitary regulations is largely a question of fact to be con-
sidered by the Commissioners’ Court, and its judgment will notbe
oVcr%urtled in the absence of an abuse of di,scretion. Dodson v.
Marshall (Civ.App., writ dismissed), 118 S.W.(2d) 621, by Justyce
Alexander.
On the other hand, the e,rection of dormitories, meet-
in,g halls, recreation halls, garages, and similar buildings solely
for itinerant workers or any other similar group does not come
within the meaning of the “health and sanitary’” facilities contem-
plated for the general public under Article 4434 and the constitu-
tional provisions above referred to. A general “Labor Camp” as
mentioned in your letter, for the benefit of any particular group of
persons, would appear to fall within such prohibition.
A counti nary, in cooperation wit)r a city
under &title 4434, provide health and sanitary
facilities for itinerant Latin American workers
anil others of the general public to promote the
public health of the community. But it is not au-
thoriaed to con$truct a general Labor Camp solely
Sag such workersi.
Ycbwr very truly,
ATTOIWEYOENERALOF TEXAS
BY
z?a .
Joe R,. Greenhill
Executive Assistantt
‘.