Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

.,~ * ,’ EXAR AUSTIN 11. TFxas October 9, 1947 Hon. M. W. B~iggs Opinion No. V-404 county Auditor Hill County Re: Authopitg of the Commis- Hillsboro, Texas sfonersP Court to own and operate an automobile et county expanse. Dear Sir: Reference is made to your recent letter in which you requested an opinion of this Department which reads, in part, as follows: "1 * Can I approve a bill for payment which the Commissioners Court of Hill County has ordered paid, which is for the pu_nchase of a new automobile for one of the Commlssion- ers? "2 . Is It legal fop County Commlssion- ers of Hill County, Texas, to operate and own an automobile or a pick-up truck at county expense? "Ibe only law which I have been able to find which pertains to this matter is Article 2372f, which is found in volume 7, page 861, of Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes. In this connection the last census, which was in 1940, shows Hill County to have a population of 38,- 352 persons. This, of coume, 'clearlytakes Hill county out Or the purview 0r htic.10 2372r. 'For your Information, the Court of Crimi- nal Appeals of Texas in Ervin vs. State, re- 'portedIn 44 Southwestern Reporter, Second Series, at page 380, states that the population bracket law ceases to apply to any partlculap county when the csunty drops out or the popula- tion bracket concerned at any federal census. Other Texas cases are quoted in this opinion to the same effect. The question of population Eon. M. W. Briggs - Page 2 (V-404) bracket law ceases to a.pplyto a county when the federal census shows they have left that particular population bracket is further covered by Attorney Genera.1 Opinion O-2337, ds,tedMay 18, 1940." We concur in your view that Article 2372f, V.C.S., no longer applies to Hill County beceuse under the 1940 Federal Census Hill County does not come with- in the population bracket. We further conour that this ~;eon is covered by Attorney General's Opinion No+ - . ThePefore, your first question is answered in the negative. At the Regular Session of the 36th Legisla- ture there was enacted H. B. No. 500, (Acts 1919, 36th Leg., p. 105, ch. 33) being a specia,lroad law provid- ing for a more efficient road system of Hill County. Said Act provided for the issuance of ro8.dbonds and for the general improvement of the road system of said county . Thereafter at the 2nd Called Session of the same Legislature the above Act was amended by adding thereto Section %a, which reads as follows: "That the members of said Commissioners' Court including the County Judge using automo- biles in the performance of their duties set out in Sec. 8 of said House Bill No. 500, are hereby allowed to use their own private auto- mobiles, a.nda,11expenses incurred by them in such use of their private automobiles name- ly, gasoline, cylinder and lubricating oil, inner tubes, casing, mechanical upkeep and vulca.nizing,shall be allowed by said Commis- sioners' Court as a claim against the County, on being presented as a formal itemized ac- count In favor of the member of the commls- aioners court presenting such account verified in accordance with Article 3712, Revised Stat- utes of 1911, and upon such claim being filed snd s~pproved,ss,meshall be ordered paid by the Commissioners' Court out of the Road and Bridge Fund and on such order being entered, the County Clerk shall draw a warrant on such fund payable to the member of the commissioners court in whose favor such claim has been ap- proved and ordered paid, and which warrant on being presented to the Soupty Treasurer, shall be by such Treasurer paid. Xon. X. I?.BPiggs - Page 3 (V-404) This Act was sgain maended by the 46th Lsgia- lalme, Regular Session, p, 872, ch. 10, by adding there- to Sections 30a md 30b, in nowise affecting Section 8a, supra; but we.9for the sole purpose of authorizing the CoDxa.lssionersY Court of Kill County to issue Road and Bridge Refunding bonds of said County fop the purpose of r8funding any and all outstmdlng scrip warrants charge- able against its Road and Bridge Fund as of February 15, 1939. Other than this, the Act reiuainsunchanged. The oMgin?tl Act as well eta the amendment of 1919 (Set, 8s) was declared val~ldin the case of Crow vs. Tinner, 47 S. W. (26) 391, affixed 124 Tex, 368, 78 S.W, (2d) 588. The Court of Civil Appeals tfiPoughChief JUtice AleX8.ndePwho vPot8 the opinion, in passing upon the oonetitutlonallty of the Act, had this to saya “Whether oP not the enactmnt of such a law was wise or unwise vaa f’oPthe Leglsla- tUPe t0 det8PiQinO. As steted before, the Leg- islatuP8 had plpovidsdfoP the voting of bonds SOP the building of a &8&wroad system in Bill county. If, st the tlm8 the act in question was emcted, said county had entep8d upon a progpam for tbm building of such roads on a 1aPge soale, the eupemision of such work en- tail8d extPa 1aboP 8nd expense on the conmU.s- sionem, and fumished sufficient justifica- tlon to the Legislature to enact d special law to meet the peouliar conditions bmught a,bout themby, as was suggasted in Dallas County v, Plovmn, 99 Tax, 509, 91 S.W. 221, 222. Whether the oonditiens whloh induced the Legislature to pass the atitin question have now been Pemoved, It la not f8~ the oouz% to say0 If th.8appel- lee feel8 that there vas nevrr anj need folp eueh a law, OP that the mmditiona which in- duoed the Legislature to snect same no long8r emit&, his Pemedg is with the L8gieletuPe and not with the couPts, In QW opfnlon, t&e act in question had fop ita sole pu~poa4 the better mintrnance of the road8 in lUl.1CountIf,tnd Vaa therefore authorized by the Constitution. Thepefope, in vS4w of the SoPegoing, you are Pe- epoctfully advfsad that it is the opinion of this Department t&at it Sa legal for the County ComleslonePs of Iii11County, Texas, to opsPat8 the& ovn automobiles OF pickups at county expense when on official county businsss of malntalting 02” building p&da0 und8r Soetion g of th8 original A& of 1919, -- .. Hon. M. W, Bplggs - Page 4 (V-404) 1. The county auditop is not author- ized to approve a bill for the pwPchase of a new automobile POP one of the County Co~~~issione~sof Hill County since Article 2372f, V,C.S,, is no longer-applicable to Hill county. 2. It is legal for the County Comnis- sioners of Hill County to operate their own automobiles OP pickups at county expense when on officfal county business OS main- taining OP building roads under Special Road Law of Hill County, Aots 1919, 36th Leg., p* 105, ch. 33, as amended, on which constitutionality we.supheld in Caow v. Tinner, 47 3. Wo (26) 391. Youm vel"Jr tmly ATTORNEY BEMERAL OF TEXAS B&ce Allen BAadjm Assl,sta.nt ATTORNEY @ElT%RAL