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