OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
i
!:
.
ii:
I
1
I
I
1
!
$2 /
Jlonorcblo n. v. Rayford - page 2
,
attached hereto) gberein uo considered the legality of
au appropriation from the General Bbnd of the couuty by
,the Conndssicners~ COW% to be expended in the interest
of flood oontrol through a oousemation and roclapation
district. Ue rulad against the validity of such an es-
pmditure, saying, 'Ue ham mde au sxhaustivs search
of the Constitution and the statutes of Tez-zm, includ-
ing the Act creating this district, aud have found no
express or impllsd authority where Por the Cormdssion-
ors* Court to make such appropriation.m
We haye in the present instance nzade a oareful
study of the Act crsatiug soil conservation districts aud
fiud notM.ng t&rein, if such content could constitution-
ally enter into such a bill, that would authorize the Corn-
tissionerst Court of a county ezzbraced within such conser-
oation~d%strict to m&e the donation suggested by you.
aIor20vor, ths st$ute authorising State c0nsamation dis-
tricts shows the policy of the State Prith respect to such
so11 preservation aud negatives, impliedly at least, ths
authority of counties as such to engage in such activi-
ti33.
Vary truly yours
APFOVRD APR 18,~1941- ATTOllXZY GiXWLk OF !K$XAS
_. . ~- -~-.
FIRST ASSISTAMT
i\?;TORgEYGENERAL
06-m *
Suclosure