Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICEOFIHE A'170RNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN Honorable D. C. Oremr Stats fiighwayXnglmor Aurrtin,Teaa Dear Sir: Opinion No. 0485E .Ber The authority of the Etato blghway Department to require hQhway oon- ld!uo tio o onntr a a to tor a two paint puroha8ed and omd by tha State of Texas and deduot the uoat of suoh paint from the oontraotor'a Axmthly sstlmate8. ke aoknomlgbge reoeipt oi your request r0r en oeinlcn of thie Deportlmt on the question arrto whether the 4ate highway Departimnt ia authodmd to pur~hmm paliSt be LIEO~ on all maintenanoo and oonetruotlon work ‘ml require al9 oontraotorr rer.oons+uotlon of Mrk to use the paint’ao pur- eatiwte -the 90') ohassd and .to~doduot. Zmm tfre..oontraotcpt'a of the.gialnttied by #ueh oontraotor. 7 'The exo'luilveand 8010 l&hitirrtratire~qontrolof the &ate d.ghwayr Fe tested in the state &&&my Qomiaaion. (Art. 5663 fi.C.8,) In the odm oi k%m.v. Be&n, 46 S. W. (2d) 586 (6om.App.), the oourt saidt V&e &foot of t&e prwmt statute (Vsrnon~s imnotataa Cirfl Statutor,-Art,6666~et seq.1 on the subjoot is to ve6t admfnietratlre oontrol of all public road8 whioh might be a pati of the Eon. D. C. Crew, page 2 state highmy system in the state hi(zhwaydepart- ment, with reepeot to the designation, lboatlon, relocation, I~prov:znent,construction, abandonment, or discontinuance thereof. chatever said deoart- ment may do in the premisea, in the exercise of eu honest discretion, must be respeoted when untainted by fraud and unassailed on aooount of accident or cisteke ooourrihg In their performanoe, or suoh abuse of discretion as under the authorities WOUld SVOid the ABme." (Undersoorlng ems) i-. I ns above held It la solely with the Ltate highway Commission to determine the manher In whioh aaid highway should be oohstruoted and their deterrrinatlonoan be assailed only it it is tainted with some speoles of fraud. If the state highway Comiesion determines that the interest of the.Et&e will be beat served by requiring all contractors to use paint aoqulred by the State Highwa'y*De- partzmnt as above rot forth that is a matter that can be determined only by the btate al&way ComuIssion. In the eeee of Losheim v. kollins, 79 S. b. ($33)678, the Court of Civil Appeal6 held: -'The&ate hli'hwayConunlsslonIs authorized to take over and maintain the various state high- wuye in Texas, an6, In aooompliahiug this duty imposed upon it, the judtgnentot the highway Commission, and not of eomaone else, 18 euprem. The faot'that there are better my8 of maintaining the highways is unlmportant.w (Undersoorlng owa 1 hot only do ve bell&e that the broad grant of powers to the State highway Ccwmlsslon authorizes the purohase and L+ndling of paint as outlined In your request, but we be-. liere that Artiole 6674k, hevised Cirll Statutes is au ex- press authorization 80 to do. Sal6 Artlole being as follower *The State Flghway Cormniasionshall prescribe the form of suoh contract and may Inolude therein such rotters as they may deem advantaneous to the State.n Go ( thererore, see no reason why, If the State hi&?.?.way Commission determInes that it would be edranteCeou8 to the Ltate, eald Comlsslon cannot require all contractors to 1288 L - a0n. U. C. Greer, page 3 paint which has theretofore been purchased by the state hlghwey fiepartmmt and deduct the cost of such paint from the estlmtee of the contractors. You are, therefore, advised that our answer to yc,urinquiry la in the ai'flnue- tlve. However, this opinion Is not to be oonstrued as auth- orizing the state Ughwey Department to oherge oontreotore more than cost because we find nothing in the law that would authorize it to engage in a proprietary enterprlae. om SEP 19, 1941 Yours vary tNly