OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
dealor vhen the plaa8 of
bWh d8ti8r 18 ltithh thrst
88s Of ISi& C.hUl'CCtl,DUbl.iO
0 horpital, th8 DBalllFOWllt8
fU?C'~8~t~ liar8 Ot the 8trO.t
01 .rront door to front
door
ct line acroa8 intersectllonvhere
. thsy oacur.’
'19 it 9OUr Opinion that ths COlUBhII~OA8ra’ COUPt
of any county haa th8 o~~atltutloaal povsr to invoke the
restrictiona (iaprovided for in the above-quoted section
of the T8XW LiqUOl' COAtI’ Act?”
.
BOA. B8tt Ford - -58 2
Thlr asatlon of th8 mxa8 Liquor Coatrol Act, vhich
i8 APtlO 666-2fhC, V8FllOn'B &,AOtat8d %X,38 p8Ml Code, in-
VOlV88 th8 qU88tiOa Of the pOV8P Of the X.egiab3tura to dale-
Wt8 to 8A9 p8raon or aaaocl8tlon of psmona tlu authority
t0 -8, modif Or sU8pMd th8 hV8. Art1018 1, 88~. 28, and
httiCl8 11, !!OXa8 COil8titUtiOll.
W8 hW8 hor8totor8 ti8d in our oplnlon 80. C-4657
that tb8 8bov8 quot8d 88ation o? th8 Liquor Control Act la
vaLld insot8r 88 it d818g8t88 aUthOrlty to %x8 gotomlng
8uthorltl88 of an9 olty or tom.* Ths qU8BtlOA pmBaAt8d h8r8
18 vhsther or not 1lk8 ruthorlty may b8 d818g8t8d to the
COaiml8alow~8' COIli-ta.
~~COIPIPi8B~oWta CORFt8 8t8 telltedby th8 Coo&l-
tution vltl~jwllal6l povet (Art. V., 880. 1, T8x. COArt.),
but they ~8 alrio authotlmd to exemlae auoh power8 md jurh-
diction Wet &.ll oowty bu8in.88 88 18 OOni8rl'8dby th8 Con-
atltutlon and the lava of the Stat8 (Art. JF, SW. 18, Tex.
COllBt.) a8 V811 a8 t0 POrfOFlBC8rtaiA pIWe 8ddAiBtratiV8
tRACtiOA8. Art. VIII, a80.~18 and Art. Ix, 380. I, mx. conat.
countlea 62,000 population are nov authorized
over
tO 8dOpt WUAtJ ROW i0d8 C&t8r8 (Art. A, 980. 3, 'hr.
canat., Ammdwnt adoptbd 1933) vh%ch give th8a great8r povera
over oowty oifaln. Citlae OV8t !jOOO~RUhtiOIi h6YS had
th8 right‘to adopt Homa Llul8 Ch8tt8ra BiAOe 1912. Art. XX,
S80. 5, POX. COAat. Countlaa 8nd town8 having a papulatlon of
5000 or 18~6 may be dartered &lOAe b9 gaened~hv (Art. II,
See. 4, T8X. COnat.) end ihaOf+r a8 the qWBtiOA hOm Involved
$8 COAO8tA8d v8 888 no dlff8r8nC8 b8tV8eA thB COnBtltUtiOA81
paver of th8 L8glalstur8 to dO18g8t8 authorlty to th8 govern-
ing 8uthotlti88 of such oltl88 and the pOVer t0 deIegat8 au-
thotity t0 COWiS8iOWr@' CORFt8.
A&C18 M, S8ctian 5 of the CoA8tltutlOA 88 adopted
in 1876 provided thet "oltl88 having th8A tell thouaand
Q'OlV'
lllhabltfiRt8 as9 have th8iF ch8rtera granted or amended by
5p8Oiid Act OS tile L8&lBh+t8. . . .* Thla PrOViIIlOA a5 hare-
toPore pointed out v8a superaeded by the RorimRule Amendment in
1912. HOVBVCW, prior to the 8dOptiOA OS the Homo Rule AmUPaAdwAt
the govarnlng bodies OS a number of cLtles ti 'ilexaa
were au-
thorized by fjpecfalAct OS the Legialatura to prohlblt the
keeping and sale of liquor within certain delined areas of the
city involved or in areaa that might be deilned by the governing
IfOA. Eart Ford - page 3
AUthOriti88 OS th8 pArGicU.lAF city. ProaecatloA8 UAder them
~pecialAct8 and undas CXty Ordlnoucea pAstaed PurawAt there-
to VOPB upheld end the veilldltyOS such statute8 vwa aua-
talned. ES pntto Leol~e, 46 Tex. Cr. It.372, 81 S. Y. 1200;
lVmonalk V. st8t8, WX. Cr. &?P.. 100 3. v. 374, 8X Q8Ft8
Icing,28~. Cr. UPa, 107 9. Y. %9j.HOAdOr8M 0, City Of
WlvestoA, 102 Tax. 163, 114 8. u* 10d. IA lm PArtA KlA&,
eit8d SbOV8, th. WXIt8ntiOB V8B E8d8 tht ?.f th8 L8gl8lAtUl'C
~oaasaa8d the power to prohibit th8 8&8 of intOXio8tiPg
liquora vlthla the t8rritoty pmaalrlb8d by It, this paver
could not be delegated by the Leglaf&ture to the Coaniaalonera
Of th8 City 0s Ft. WOtth. ’ The Court of CrirLoal APp88lB ln
ovetruling this oont8ntlon arldr
“It Ima di8binOtlp h8ld by thl8 GOUtt iA th8
a&SO8 Of 8X IWt*,I.#Vbi8, 46 TICX. Ct. ft.364, 81
3. W. 1207, and Oaronalk v. State, 100 S. W. 374,
that th8 rtxing of BtioOn -to la a ml?e XwgUbtloA
of th8 llquir mfrie, and not ln an9 88na8 a pro-
hlblt%OA fhereoP, and that such U&to, a8 a regu-
lation, Am 1AvSul and simald b8 upheld. m Legl8-
laturs of thio state ie authorlaed to emgavsr alty
counolla by rpsol8.2 charter to pre8crlba the bounda-
ries snd lialta Within which i&8 aaL6 Of llpwt 8hall
be prohibited by lav, and auoh local authorltlea may
&Sin8 8nd limit tb arm vlthiq vhlah AlOB such ,~,LL~:;
sale may be lwl'ul. 5%~ V88 dlatlnctly ti8d 1A
the cam of CObBA 0. Rice, 1.01~ 9. u. 1053, by the
court of Cl+11 Appeals oS the Filth SuQtew J-udiaie.l
Dirtriot, in vhlch CAB(B8mlt at error V&I mf'ured
by our 3u3remB Court. thin la in acoofi vlth and is
veil auatalned by the authoritlsa. 1 Abbott on
j&nlclpal Corporatlona, Sea. 130; PaoQlo V. Cmgl8P.
138 111. 401, 28 R. 8. 8121 WYO~ or vtiverdr t. she-
tuck, 19 Cola. 193, 34 P&o. 947, 41An. Qt. RoQ. 208."
por other eAae1 in vhlch the valldlty OS statute8 pro-
hibiting the esle OS lntoxicatlng llquore vithin stated diBtaAce
of chum&on, eohoolaj'eto. have been upimld, see: Alexander
v. Orave8, 178 #188. 583, 173 30. 417; state v. Snov, 117 N.C.
774, 23 2. E. 3Z?j State ex. reA. Cuzumi~s v. Styler, 121 Ala.
:a, 25 SO. 1dlCjraoyd v. arpAt, 3s Ark. o9,,.37Am. R-P. 3;
People v. Kaelber, 253 Ill. 552. 97 N. E. 1~6.
Ae to the resaonoblsneas C# the ordlnancea OS the
mm. Ret-t Ford- Page 4
CoQal6eionere’ court or the order8 of the county Judge in
csrrylng out the liquor regulatlone,
--- .~aee~ State v. Durein,
70 Kan. 1, 78 Pac. 152, 15 L. r?. A. (Y. 9.1 9W -d nnno-
tation in 15 L. R. A. (lZ.3 .g* y;**TtLM: i6g; TV.,-
Eaeterling (BUBB.) 184 so.
tatlon in 119 A.L.R. p. 643, ei seq.
Another queetlcm involved in the preeent inquiry
la vhether or not there 1s eomethlng peaaliar about the organ;-
r&tion OS 8 Bounty ~eeiceiere’ ‘3ourt 88 VOuld prevent it
from exeralelngthe authority delegated to It by Section 25(a),
Article I OS the Texee LiQuOr Control Act. It is to be noted
that each of the out-of-etate cases alted above upheld the
valldlty of etatutee fix- the llmlte or euthorieing the
fIxa ol 1Ute of -tell liquor eetebllehmente la e?untLee.
The recent caee or Vendenburgh County v. Sender8
(md.) 30 It. R. (2d) 713, 131 A.L.R. 1048, uphoLd tb velldlty
o? a eonlng otilnance paeeed by a aountp coml~~lonere~ court.
our Supreme Court in SteMleAd v. Steto, &3 Tex. 317, 18 S.W.
577, upheld the validity of en ect giving the oounty aom-
mlesloners’ caurt of any oounty power to ebolieh the.office of
County Suprelntendent orpublie znetruotion. In view of
Article ~JI, Seotlon 20, Texae Codetlttatlon, authorleiug 10081
option aontzol of liquor cm a county baels, YB are unable to
say t&t the regulation or the .eele of liquor vithln prescribed
Unite Vlthin e oounty ie not “county buelneae” vithin the
me6nlng or Artlole Y, Section 18 ol the Texaa Conetltutlon.
11 Tex. JUP. p. $6, !i66, 8.0. ;$8. IhiB 18 Be~Otiy trtre
sinas the Legieleture by peeelng Section 25(e) of the Liquor
Control Aat ha8 in effeot raid that the ~regulotlon of liquor
eeteblishmente vlthin 300 feet of any church, public echo01
OF public hoepltel is county bualneae. a8 vell ae city busi-
nlJee,
The contention that loa& option elections provided
for l.n -ation 20(b), Artlole XVI a? the Conatitutlon conetl-
tue the exoluelve method for determining prohlbitlon in a per-
tlculor area ie eneversd by pointing out that Section 20(h),
Article XVI of the ConBtltUtiOn give8 the Legislature *the
jmver to regulate the manufacture5 sale, goneeseion and trnns-
portatlon of tntoxicatlng llquorl nnd that “the ftxing of
s&loon llzzltsie a Iwit) regulation OS the llqwr tmfflc, and
not In any sense a prohlt+tlon choreof.” zx parte King, 107
3. v. 549.
lion. Bsrt Ford - Peg0 5
It 1s our opinion that the aot Is valid under
the authorltiee above cited li it la conetrued as authorl-
ring aomleeloaese~ uourte to fnvok;o its provl8lon8, but
not re~ulr&q them to do eo. Hovove~, lf it should be
aaneidemd that such l conetmatfon vould render lt in-
valid, ve am of the oplnlon that in order to awlsold its
vellditf the vord ‘my” 88 used la raid eeotton vould be
8~et8ued es meuLLng shall', thus meklng erld SBatloa
25(e) maMatow lnetead of pormieelve. 39 Tex. Jur. 36
380. 15; 39 TN. Jur. 207, SIN. 111s 9 Tex. Jur, k%,
sec. 63; Retlone Surety corgoratlon v. Udd, 131 Tsx.
295, 115 9. Ii. (2d 600, 6021 County Comlerionere ye.
selth, 22 GOlO. 531 , 45 P. 39, 33 L. R. A. 465.
Youiw very truly
ArnI(IIEIoBIIERAL#TRxAs
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion