Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1948 )

EXAS
AUSTIN 11. TEXAS
September 14, 1$+8
Hon. Sam Lee Opinion No,, V-682
County Attorney
Brasoria County Re: Authority of Commls-
Angleton, Texas sioners' court to fur-
nish automobiles, and
an allowance for their
maintenance, for the
use of individual Corn-
laissioners in handling
county business.
Your letter requesting an opinion reads;
"The County Auditor of Brascria Coun-
tg propounded to me the following questions%
"(1) Is it legal ior the County of
Drazoria to furnish the lndivldua1 members
of the Commissioners* Court of Brasorla
County, Texas an automobile for their use In
traveling about to take care of county busi.*
ness?
"(2) Is it lawful for the County of
Brasorla to furnish the individual members
of the CommAa~aleaors' Court the 8um of $25
per Wnth for the up keep and maintenance
of cars furnished lay the county to the indi-
vldual members of tho~CommLesionersg Court?
"It is my opinion that it is not legal
for the County of Braeoria to furnish lndl-
vldual members of the Commlsslonerst Court
automobiles for their use in transacting
county business and neither is It legal for
the CouutY of Brasoria to pay $25 per month
for the up keep and maintenance of said cars
used by said commlsaloners6
"This opinion has been excepted to
and also involves the validity of the
.
1 Baa. San Lee, page 2 (V-682)
statute;therefore, I am requestlngyour
opinionof the tvo above ststed questions."
E. B. 868, Acts 1941 47th Lsgislaturs, p. 394,
(Article2350m, V. C. S., notsj provideat
*seotion 1. Ins4 Cou?dJJ iathls
State hrvixig a population of not lissr thsa
tveaty-seventhoumad and rirtpniae (2T,-
059) aad not mofe than tvsnt -6eieathoix-
sand, oas hundredaad firty T27,150) ac-
cording to the last precedingFederal Cen-
6~6, the bimlssioners Court lo hereby
authorlredto allow each CoUat Oommis-
sumer the aam 0r Twenty-rlve50 liars ($25)
psr month r0r travelingexpea8es while on
0rricia1 bwne88.
"SO& 2. Tha Coamlssioae~s Court in
raid ooMtie8 is hrrsbby authorirsd to allow
each Cauaty Collirsionertbs une 0r a separ-
ate automobileto bs used by the Com~ssion-
er la the dlsch&r#o0r orrioiaibusimS8,
raid autctmoblloto be purchared by the ooun-
ty S.nteo~" pm8crlbsd br la+ for the
gur up08 aad pap ror out ty the
or&oralFwul 0 the aount~o
Brmoria County +ith a populationor 27,069 la-
hsbitants socordi to thr 1940 Federal Csasus 18 ths ow
17 countyin ths "&
S ate oolring
oithSn the ~tltnt braak-
et set out in the above Aota 2-h Act is lwlioabls My
to 8msoria Countye
&tlsls 111, ssotim 56 or ow 8tato Caartltu-
tion, pfovids8~ in part, a8 t8Ia8rrr
%o Legfrl8tlwe sb811 aot, lx o sp t
l8 o th e m r lse
p r o r id@ a a th iso o wtitu-
tiOa $SS8 w &#a1 02 8ma&1 lb V,luth -
o r lSla 6~
I
...
"Be ulatiryths lftalrr of oountiss,
c1t1q , 8OW, U8F68 OP 8hhOO1 distrlats;
. . .
Ths aourt aa ths oa80 of Jaassoav. Snith, 161
8.V.(2d)520, wit FsiUlOd,hsld uaooastitutioaal aa Act
Hon. San Lee, page 3 (V-682)
vhlch provldee:
I
the CommIsslonsrs Court is hereby
a;t&eed to allow each Commlaaloner not
more than the sum of Thlrtg-five Dollars
($35) per month to be paid out of the Road
and Bridge Fund of each respective Code-
sloner’s Precinct, r0r traveling expenees
and depreciation on the automobile while
u8ed on official business only and/or in
overseeing the construction and maintenance
of the public roads of said counties. Each
such Conmissioner shall pay all expenses in
ths operation of suoh automobile and keep
rsaa in repair at his own expense, free of,,
why other ch6rge whatsoever to the county.
We quote the following from Jameson v: Smith,
supra a
"At the time-the 18~ went Into effect
In 1939, Coleman County was the only county
In Texas within Its provisions. At the pre-
sent time under the 1940 Federal Census it
is not within the provisions of the law and
only Lea county 16 D D 0
"If it wers the dealre, purpose and
Intention of ths Leglslaturo to pass a
special road law for Coleman County, it
could have easily Mulr86ted it by psss-
ing it as such o a o
“Ths ACt8 provided ror relmbum68ment
ok compensation or ths equivalent thereof
for these new aad addsd duties, We undeP-
8t4ud the declsltias to sast upon that
@muad, and ooaoluds, t&rstom, if the
a4Ued compsnsatloa pPo+idoa for merely sup-
~Wnent8 the oompe~atlOa as provided by
amal lrv vlthout by ~IBP@SS terms of the
fz t lmpos%ng uy stied sna sew duties, the
law maralf wWFtako8 to Psgulrte count
businesr tontp8Pp to tha Constitution, Lt.
3, Ssoe 56, &EU1s not a loos1 road lav for
the rleteMaoo 0r public road8 and hi&-
VQ8.
"Ths oonclrulons reached here 88811
Eon. Sam Lee, page 4 (V-682)
to be In harmony with what Chief Justice
Phillips said in Alt elt v. Gutselt, supra,
and quoted by Judge f lexander In Crow v.
Tinner (47 S.W,2d 393)r *Ho doubt the Leg-
islature, In the passage of local.road laws,
may, within propel! bounds, provide compen-
sation for extra services to be performed
by those officials * * * where uncontrolled
by general laws and required br such local
laws and directly connected with the main-
tenanos of the publlu roadsee Kitchens v.
Roberts, suppa, aft refused, Is to the
aams 8rrb0t.
"This law Is not limited to the maln-
temaaceof public roads, nor does It impose
added and new duties not imposed by general
law for which It undertook to plrovide addi-
tional compensation. For the masons stat-
ed here we rlgard It as unconstitutional,
and so hold.
In view 0r the ropego* it Is our opinion that
H. B, 868, Acts 1941, 47th Lsgislatuzrb, p- 394 (Artlole
2350m, V. C. S., moSs) is umuomatitutisaal and void. For
additional authorities on this point 8ee authorities cit-
ed In Attorney Qenssal@s Opinion Ro. V-225, a copy of
which la eaclosed.
According to your inqulrJ Bpacopia Count is
operatlng under the County Optional Road Law of 1 d 7.
However, the Optional Road Law does not contain raj pro-
vision relative to the purchase of automobiles fori use
by the county domissioners, ThorefocI), us must 'look
to the gemem law to determine whether automobiles may
bi furmlahed the commissioae~ao In Attorney Qeneral'a
Opialoa Bo. O-752, it wae held:
"You are rsspectfully advissd'that It
Is the opinion of thls~department that the
Commlbaioners~Court in counties opepatlng
under the generalroad 1aW of this atate sre
not empowered or authorlsed to buy automo-
biles, pick-upeOP trucks for the county to
be used by the aomnhsloners la the pepfor-
mea or their duties as county oommisslon-
ers.
It is our opinion in visw of the foregoing that
FOIL ~%IIbe, page 5 (V-682)
no automobilemay be furnishedto the CountyComnlsslon-
era of Ba9aziorla
County0
Since no n.utohfle nmy bQ Ytmaisbd the Ooun-
ty commlsf3ionowor IWimrPa County,it Pollowsin AMWer
to row 8econ8pesti- test tb c0a86i~ePd court
oonld not pay its comnlseione~e $25&O pep month ior the
'llprsepapd tMinte~88W O? suoh CAZ??Ba
YsuPe VePp trJulJ;
ATTOREEX #RRRRAL W, TSKAS
JRnmw