Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Ron. Leo ?rennell
Countyrittomey
;:ptiutcounty
Gilmr, Texns
Dear Sir: !
a~populatlm3ormtleaa than
Miami, one hundred ISa 10.00)
twmty-tw6 thonaand,&rs bun-
aatmrdlngto the led prrcmb
%n8U2 the 0oglai8eioner8t court
of suah aeuntpis !mrebyauthmlsed to ieraue
sash oimmi~oioilerthe mm of i'iftydollarm
ilt50.00)p%r month for travelfagexpeRs.s
#hltleon ofiloialbunin6nn. @aid rmney to
ROZI.Leo Tre5rmll,June 1, 1939, Pa&s Z
be paid out of the muera fund ai said
aounty.
'580. 2. ?3lOr&8llO3'4
The fadt that
ownty oadf~sion0rs in oertoin oouatlea
nusttravel ezteneivelyon officialbusiness
and the fact that them l.sno appropriation
made by lav to aare tar suoh expearres,create
an amsrgenoyand en l~rcrtlve Dublio neoeas-
Sty that the oonatitutlonalrule requiring
bill8 to be read on thme sererilday8 in
tmoh Ilousebe eu&!pended,and the 8emO is
henbr suapended,aadthieaotshell tak8
offeatand be In for00 l'rcmand after its
pafmage,antIit 18 20 enaotad."
L?pshurCow&, Texas, aaaordlngto the last
preoedingFederal Census or 19S0, has twenty-twothou-
sand, two hundred and nine-8aVoa(e8,297~) inhabitants.
Upshur GountT,Texas, is the only oount i&T$;l;pLng
Withbi the QOpKIlatiOnbraokets8Ot Out In
866 of th% 46th Legislature,above qtmted.
At tha very outset ai ?.hLsopinlan,,
we are eon-
rmdd with the qU88tiOR 0r
or'th@ oonstitutf.onalfty
Eowm Bill 866 or the 46th Legislatureoi Tbxas, above
quotea. 7%~ queetifmaria08 es to wh%ther ktrnot thi8
aot 18 a local or 6psOiallaw regulatingthe affair8aC
.oountiea in violationor Artiole5, Section86 or the
comitut itanor Texas.
T2m case af Altgeltve* Cucelt,a01 6;r100,
hold8 that Beraf County nocldtiw, providingrW QIlhluIual
28~1~ r0r 00``1i8dtmwr8 0f 80unty r0ortmthg in all
oapaoitlos,was unoonatitutianrrl, as an attmptifdregula-
tfan or aounty arralraby looal and epeaiallar.
The O&80 oi 3&h ve. Stati 49 SW Znd 759,
h0lb8 that the OonntltutionaI prOalb&on agaln8tspecial
law8 oonmt be evadedby making law wplicable to a pro-
tended ola88 and that a etatute 0lattsirying nunlolpal.itles
by populationis %peaiel* ir populatkm doe8 not f&ford
“A OOnsidrnttOn Of the Oh88iiiMtiM
oreatedby the sot involveain the present
., 0680 In the light or ArtIol*3, sootlolt !sd
0r the constitution, mi``~rilycalls r0r the
6pQliocltiOa oi the rU& that th. L6&I8htUM
ouuwt evade the prohibition of the Goastl-
tutim by making a law applicableto a pre-
tended 8h88, whloh 18 &8 mMit@atad by the
sot, In hot, no o&w. Clark vs. Finley
54 SIT 343, mlpn. &t40 Or th0 t%0t8 iOr 8+
termlnlng whother a pretendedolass is nanI-
arelaid down
twtod by racab't by IWulllaa
011 kfUDiOiJ4d COrpOrOtfOM, YOhlW 1, pa@8
498,499. ne quotot *me olas8IfIoatIon adopt-
ed Bmst re8t ip real or subrtantlaldistino-
tion wtilohrender-6 one olass,In truth,
di8tfnot or dlffemnt from another01688.*.
mgu-e antatoxi8t a rsaflonablejwiri06tiorr.
for tho olarslfieatlon~ that 18, the ba818
ot the ol6s8iiloatIonInv*ed must have a
dlreot relationto tha purport of the law...tr
In the ease of Uootlva. Earfm Indos?emlent
Sob001
Xetrlot, 123 SW end 4e0, the court used the iol.louIng
,lalpWg*l
*We take JudloIalknowledgethat no
other oounty in T-8 hue the qualIiIO6tfon
of area and populationdwanded by the rta-
tute8....ft &3 8*riaidi to say here that
when M look to the praotloaloperationof
the aot ue are 1.d to the oomlusIon that
beyond doubt It was the purposeor the 1%&r
16turr ta 8ingla out Presidio County and s&e
the aot a~pllcabletc that oountyalone.
Bsxar County ~8. TYMZI, 97 SS Znd 407. For
that reason the sot lb a local aot and one
Ron. Lw Fresnell,June 1, 1959, Page 4
which It vae beyond the power of th? Legis-
lature to mbaot. ?CWtlCUl'8 lrnnotatedCIYI1
StatUt48, Texas Constitution,
Art10103, Sea-
tlOn 56; L??Wnfi%ldVI* ~htL4WJ 109 SW ad
382; city 0r Port ivorthvs. Bob&tt, 56 8R
&idt 470g Fritter ta. Went, 65 SR and 4l4;
Austin -?rOS. ?8. ~?attOn,
w S?llfJ2fSnlth
VI). State, 49 S.W. 2nd 7S9.%
~Thi8 dmpartmmt held in it8 oplnlon ??o. O-18
02 Uhmh 6, 1939, that Arti01s823726-1S&3 522lbdS
RmvlsedCivil Statutesor Texas, 1926, the former b&g
applioableto oountle8 having a population0r not 1488
than forty-eight thouaond, nine hundred (40,900)and
not mom than ?orty-nlnm thouand (49,000) aad the latter
applying to oounttmswith a populationof not lea8 then
rorty-%IShtthousand,al.50hundred (48,900) and not mom
thnn rorty-el@t thousand,nIue hundredand seveaty-iIv@
(4f&975)aad'oountIeewith a populaticm0r not 1488~than
ten thousand,three hundredand s@Yenty(10 370) and not
mrm than ten thcuesnd,three hundred and e!gbty (lO,SSO),
aoeordlngto the last prmoedlng FederalCen8W, u6re un-
oonstitutlonal and voldeaespealal law8 under Sootion 56,
~rtIol@ 3 or the stats Constltutlon, olting the oese of
the City oi Port Worth ve. Bobbitt, 96 SU En& 470.
This departmentheld in Its ginion 30. O-364,
on mroh 1, 1939, that Article3902, seotloa3a themor,
RevisedCivil Statutesor Texas, 1926, Providingror an
off;08 aaalstant,bookkeeperand ateno6rsPhorIn &Ka4ntfb8-
havlng a populationor not leea than rcrty-elshtthousand
nine hundred (48,900)and not more than rorty-ninet.hou8and
(49,000)inhabitants,aooordingto the last preoedln&Fed-
a2-d C*naus,ww raid under miole 3, section66, 0r.the
State ConatltutIonr
This departmentheld in Its opinionXo. O-462,
on Pearah21, 19939,
that EOUO Cl11 652, 46th Le~81aturmt
whleh prov1am8rar the ettaohmontor adjaaentterrItay
458
Ron. Leo I'rem.11, June 1, 1939, Page b
three huadredthausand (300,000)and not noro than
three hundred and fifty thousand (350,000) inhabitants
aaoordlng to the laot preoeaiq Fodoml census, me un-
txmstltutlonal in that It att4rapWd to maot a looal
law and isllnlthl~ ths prohibition of Artlalo 3, Seo-
\tlOA !M oi the Con5tltutloA of Tosas.
‘CQ ere of the oglAlon tlmt Eouae 9111 No. 866
of tbe 46th T,eglnlatun of Taras, quoted abore, Is olear-
'ly UAOOn&itUtdOAa~ aAd viOlat ~4atiOA 56 Of aticti
3 or the Canstltutlon of Tmaa.
Therefore, you am ros~4oMully advised thst
it 1s the opinion of this dopartwnt that T?ouae Bill R&W
866 of the 46th Le&lslatum of Te%as 1s uAconstltutloM1.
You an furthar ro~?tfully adrleod that it Is the OpiA-
ion of this demrtmimt that the coml5aloner`` Oourt
would not bo justified in payl~.g the con!~issio~4ra any
owns of laoney as traveling expe~nos under t!zls unoorrtltu-
tIma law.
TNatlae; that this a~mer5 your Inquiry, we ar4
very truly yours