TIE .A OKNEY GENERAL TEXAS June 13, 1951 Hon. Henry Wade opinion No. V-1188. Mstrict Attorney Dallas County Re: Necessity for food sup- Dallas, Texas plies fw the county jail to be purchased by the county purchasing Dear Sir: agent, You have requested an opinion on the following question: "Is It the duty of the PurchasingAgent of Dallas County to buy supplies of food for the jail?" Article 1040, Vernon*8 Code Criminal Procedure, provides: "For the safe keeping,'support and main- tenance of prisoners confined in jail or under guard, the aheplff shall be allowed the follow- lng'chargesn "1* For the safekeep of each prisoner for each day the sum of fffteen cents, not to exceed the sum of two hundred dollars per month. “2, For support and maintenance,for each prisoner for each day such an amount as may be fixed by the commissionerscowt, provided the same shall be reasonably suffi- cient for such purpose, and In no event shall it be less than forty cents per day nor more than seventy-fivecents per day for each prls* oner. The net profits shall constitutefees of offfce and shall be accounted for by the sheriff In his annual report as other fees now provided by law. The sheriff shall in such report furnish an itemized verified ac- count of all expendituresmade by him foF feeding and maintenance of prisoners, accom- panying such report with receipts and vouchers . . Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (V-1188) in support of such items of expenditure, and the difference between such expendi- tures and the amount allowed by the com- missioners court shall be deemed to constitutethe net profits for which said officer shall account as fees of office. n3. For necessary medical bill and reasonable extra compensationfor atten- tion to a prisoner during sickness, such an amount as the ccnmnlsslonerscourt of the county where the prisoner is confined may determine to be just and proper. "4. For reasonable funeral expenses in case of death.* In Attorney Generals8 Opinion to Hon. J. L. Crosth- wait, County Auditor of Dallas County, dated November 14, 1933, It was held that the provisions of Article 1040 would control over the provisions of Section 11 of Douse Bill 911, Acts 43rd Leg. R.S. 1933, ch. 236, p. 805 (Art; 2372, note, V.C.S.j, which provided in part: "The CommissionersCourt of such counties may appoint a 'purchasingagents for such county, whose duties, official bond and compensationshall be fixed by said CommissionersCourt, provided his compensationshall not exceed Three Thou- sand, Six Hundred Dollars ($3,600,00)per year. 'All purchases of every kind and char- acter, whether of supplies,materials, equip- ment or machinery, shall be made through and by said purchasingagent, regardless of wheth- er same are to be paid for by the county or by any officer out of the fees of his office. The above enumeration shall not be construed as exclusive.” It was stated in the above mentioned opinion: "It is my opinion that no lrreconcil- able conflict exists between the provisions . I Hon. Henry Wade, page 3 (V-1188) of Section 11 of the Act and of Article 1040. Even, however, if suoh co lict does'erist, the special 'treatme 8" t of the subject contained in Article 1040 under the rules of statutory qonstructlonwhloh ma#t be applied would control over tim gemma provisions of Section 11. Re- peals by Implicationare not favored ua- dep the rules of statutory construction and this is particularlytrue where the last expression of the LegislatureIs general In Its terms as opposed to a ~spe- clal provision Which is specific in its treatment of the subjeot. Ondeb such circmstauces the special statute will prevail over the general. "It has been the long-standingpol- icy of the Legislature of this State to commit the care and maintenance of pris- oners to the sheriff. I do not believe that it was the intention of the Legls-, lgture to alter this policy by the provi- sions of Chapter 236, Acts of the Forty- third Legislature. If such an Intention did exist it would have been a relatively easy thing to have made express provision, therefor, both In the caption of the bill and in its test." The identical language of SeCtiM 11 of Rouse Bill 911 of the Forty-third Le lslature was re-enacted without cha e by House Bill 9f1, Acts 47th Leg., R.S. 3 s po 729 (Dallas County Road Law). It Is 1941, ch. 45 our opinion that a like constructionshould be placed on House Bill 961 of the Forty-seventhLegislature. You are advised, therefore, that it is not the duty of the PLW- chasing Agent of Dellas County to buy supplies of food for the jail, for that duty is expressly conferred on the sheriff by Article 1040, V.C.C.P. Attsy Gen. Opa. O-329 (19391, O-2379 (19401, v-359 (1947). It is not the duty of the Purchasing Agent of Dallas County to buy supplies of Hon. Henry Wade, page 4 (V-1188) food for the Qail since that duty Is by specific statute c&erred 011the eher- Art, lG&O V,C,C,P.$ Attfy QeBo Ops. if&3 {1939), Or2379 t1940), v-359 f1947). APPROVRDt Yours very truly, J, C. Davis, SP, PRICE IyLllTEL County Affairs Mvision Attorney General Jesse P. Luton, Jr, Reviewing Assistant ,I Charles D* Mathews First Assistant Assistant JRImw