Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

Hon. E. L. Shelton Opinion No. O-4781
County Auditor Re: Commlssione~s~ Court may not ex-
Johnson County pend county funds from the permanent
Cleburne, Texas improvement fuud of the county for
office rentals and utility bills for
relief agencies and other stated proj-
Dear Sir: ects.
Your request for opinion has been received and care-
fully considered by t his department. We quote from your re-
quest as follows:
“We have an account which we designate as
Court House & Jail Repair Fund which is nothing
more nor less than a permanent Improvement fund.
As auditor of the county I have strictly adhered
to charging nothing to this fund except those
items which go to keep the Court and Jail in good
condition and a sufficient tax has always been
levied to do this.
‘With the losses from the Officers Salary
fund which Is a draught on the General Fund
and with the increased charity demands the Com-
missioners Court have just continually kept piling
items on the General Fund until it is getting in
bad shape and soon will be beyond any redemption.
“Recently while meeting with the Court this
question was raised: increase the levy on the
Court House and Jail Repair Fund or Permanent Im-
provement Fund as you may desire to call It, and
charge all ren t s which the County is paying for
all charity projects to this fund since the County
has not sufficient room to house the H.K.A. the
Food Stamp Office and the Welfare Office and the
N.Y.A. and all other such charities which the County
has undertaken to underwrite. I hold that these
items cannot be charged to the Court House & Jail
Fund or Permanent Improvement Fund as they are for-
eigh to it, but I meet with opposition on the ground
that the Court House should house all these projects
and since it is not large enough and outside space
HO& E. L. Shelton, page 2 (O-4781)
has to be provided that it should be determined as
part of an improvement.
“1 have been told that there is no law against
it. In this connection I have read somewhere, it
occurs to me, that the higher courts have held that
If there is no law authorizing an action that it is
unlawful to do It. Am I right or wrong? If I am
right is there any law authorlzing any such expendi-
tures? Can such items as designated above along
with utility bills for such charities be charged to
the Court House & Jail Fund?”
Section 1, Article 2372e, Vernon’s Annotated Texas
Civil Statutes, provldes:
“The County Commissioners Courts and the City
Commission of any incorporated town or city of this
State are hereby authorized to lease, rent, or pro-
vide office space for the purpose of aiding and co-
operating with the agencies of the State and Federal
Governments engaged in the administration of relief
to the unemployed or needy people of the State of
Texas, and to pay the regular monthly utility bills
for such offices, such as lights, gas, and water;
and when in the opinion of a majority of a Commis-
sioners Court of a county such office space is essen-
tial to the proper administration of such agencies
of either the State or Federal Governments, said
Court is hereby specifically authorized to pay for
same and for the regular monthly utility bills for
such offices put of the County’s General Fund by
warrants as in the payment of such other obligations
of the county.“’ (Under scoring ours)
Opinion No. O-2217 (Conference Opinion No. O-3099)
of this department construes the above quoted statute. We
quote from said opinion as follows:
‘1. . . .
“You will note that the authority extended by
the preceding article is limited to the provision
of office space for the purpose of aiding and coop-
erating with the agencies of the State and Federal
Government engaged in the administration of relief
of the unemplo ed and needy people of the State of
Texas. As to %ederal~ agencies so engaged, your
fourth question and that part of the second relating
Hon. E. L. Shelton, page 3 (b-4781)
to utility bills is answered in the affirmative.
A commissioners’ Court could not extend such as-
sistance to any Federal or State agency not so
engaged.”
In our Opinion No. O-3876 we quoted the above por-
tion of Opinion No. O-2217 (Conference Opinion No. O-3099).
In Opinion No. O-3876 we also said:
11. . . .
,lWe do not have sufficient information rela-
tive to the Farm Security Administration and NYA
home to determine whether or not such Federal
agencies are engaged in the administration or re-
lief of the unemployed and needy people of this
State, and the answer to these questions will be
determined by the facts.
“Our information relative to the Federal School
Lunch Project Is meagre. However, we understand
that the purpose of the Federal School Lunch Project
is to provide meals for needy children; if this be
true we think the Commissioners1 Court would have au-
thority to pay office rent, lights, gas and water
bills for such Federal agency.
“It is our opinion that the Commissioners’ Court
would have authority to pay office rent, gas, light
and water bills for the Relief Office.
“It is our further opinion that the Coamission-
ersl Court would have authority to pay the expenses
described for the County Agricultural Agent’s of-
fice under authority of Article 164, Vernon’s Anno-
tated Texas Civil Statutes. See opinion NO. o-2516
of this department, a copy of which is enclosed here-
with for your information, which opinion also holds
that the Commissioners 1 Court is not authorized to
expend county funds for the housing of the Agricul-
tural Adjustment Administration of the Federal Gov-
ernment .
“We understand that the A gricultural Adjust-
ment Administration of the Federal Government is not
engaged in the administration of relief of, the unem-
ployed and needy people of this State. It is there-
fore our opinion that the Commissioners’ Court would
have no authority to expend county funds for office
rent, lights, gas and water bills of the AAA.”
Hon. E. L, Shelton, page 4 (o-4781)
Article 2372e, Section 1, V.A.C.S. ) supra, provides
for the payment by the county, of rents and utility bills of
Federal and State agencies engaged in the administration of
relief of the unemployed and needy people of this state, -out
of the-era1 fund of the county-
Section 9, Article 8 of our State Constitution pre-
scribes the maximumrate of taxes for general purposes, for
roads and bridges, for juries and for permanent improvements,
respectively. The monies arising from taxes levied and col-
lected for each of the enumerated purposes are constitutional
funds; and the commissioners’ court has no power to transfer
money from one fund to another, and to expend for one purpose
tax money raised ostensibly for another purpose,
The immediate purpose, of said constitutional provi-
sions are to limit the amount of taxes that may be raised for
these general purposes, respectively; but it is also designed
to inhibit excessive expenditures for any such purpose, and
to require that any and all monies raised by taxation for any
purpose shall be applied to that purpose and to no other.
See the following authorities:
Carroll vs. Williams. 202 S. W, 5Ob:
Commissioners; Court’of Henderson County
vs. Burke, 262 S.W. 94:
Ault vs. Hill County, 116 S.W. 359;
Underwood vs. Howard, 1 S.W. (2nd) 730:
Texas Jurisprudence,‘Vol. 11, pa 609; ’
The courthouse and jail fund is the permanent improve-
ment fund, or at least, constitutes a portion thereof, which is
a constitutional fund,
We quote from Texas Jurisprudence, Vo. 11, pp* 564 and
565, as follows:
l’Commissionerst courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, in that their authority extends only
to matters pertaining to the general welfare of
their respective counties and that their powers
are only those expressly or impliedly conferred
upon them by law, -- that is, by the Constitution
and statutes of the State.”
It is our opinion that you are eminently correct in
your interpretation of the powers of the Commissioners’ Court.
As pointed out above in the quotation from Texas Jurisprudence,
the Commissioners’ Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and
Hon. E. L. Shelton, page 5 (0.4781)
can only perform acts that are authorized by law. It is an
erroneous doctrine, and one opposed by all the Texas deci-
sions on the subject, to say that a Commissioners Court can
do anything that the law does not specifically prohibit it
from doing.
We agree with you that the items stated in your let-
ter cannot be paid from the courthouse and jail fund.
May we also point out as held in Opinions No. O-
2217 (Conference Opinion No. O-3099) and No. O-3876, copies of
which are enclosed for your Information, that the authority
of the Commlssioners' Court to expend county funds out of the
general fund of the county for office rest and utility bills
for State and Federal agencies is limlted to those State and
Federal agencies engaged in the administration of the relief
of the unemployed and needy people of the State.
Very truly yours
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
OF TEXAS
By /s/ Wm. J. FannLng
Wm. J. Fanning, Assistant
APPROVED AUG28, 1942
/s/ Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEY GENERALOF TEXAS
APPROVED:OPINIONCOMMITTEE
BY: BWB, CXAIRMAN
WJF:MBR:wb