\
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
43-c.- .il:
.- r
enmnmY-
\ 1; 3 ~~
q ,p. E '.-
Honorable R.L. Waebburn
County Auditor
Houaton,Texaa t
; i
Dear Slur
Your requelBtP
carefully consideredby
request as fOllov81
Px-eolnot 1 ia
tent~0f3or mt-
lag about 20,
vernm4nt proae-
1,vhMlyeuw%.llob-
ted by the C0lsal881oMF,
tour&y of~laialm,lr 4
any'pmtof the doau-
ssion or the author.
6 th4 dosltlllent Slid d0 BOt Mnd
tutsa a mpcwt required by IAV to
"I have carerullg emmIned the atetutes and
find no leeel requiPemeBt for P4ptwta of thlr
netwe from a oounty aomalrrloner to the publ%e,
to the oourt.,or to any p4r4on. I do not find
that a commfssl.oneria authoAted to pxwpen, a
bud&et or to lay down the prooedwe therefor,but
the budget in thin Cquaty 14 plowed bp tbn
452
gonorableR.L. Washburn, Pege 2
Auditor and adopted by the Comlssiomrsl Court.
I do not find thnt the Cosmlssloners~Court it-
self is suthorlaed to prepare reports OS this
nature, and no relatfon Is seen befxeea this do-
cument and the malntename and oonstructionof
public roads. I believe that the Coml.saloners~
Court itself has authority to incur any expense
reasonably lnaldent to th4 maintenancesnd oon-
struction OS County roads, but it does not appear
that th.ls4xp4me is neoessary thereto or even
reasonably lnoident to anything conmoted vlth
the msintemno4 or constmctloa of roads.
"Offielal mporta are required of certain
officers,but none of this type are r4qulred of
a County uomsias1on4ror rm the Oo3laLissioaers~
Co&L Certala offleers have th4 r&at to pre-
swibe the system of aaeounts, budgets, and pro-
cedure, but 8uc.hauthority 1~ not vested in the
Coasi8slanerstCourt.
"h'ithout'@:dlsouaslcmor the multitude of
authoritleeon the subject, It 18 xwasonably
ssf4 to 4ay that the law In this stat4 18 that
ot3smdssloxaers1
oourt~, vhlle uourts of gaasmil
jurisbiotlonvlthln the sph4m oi their autivl-
ti48, hsve only 4uuh authority as la givesiby
the Constltutfonsnd statutes at the State, or
such as may b4 reasonably incident to earryina;
out mexprsss authosity. Therefore, lt isnot
to be lmplled that a uounty o~ssioner or the
acn5h~ioners~ eoxwt itself has the authority
to issue at public expense docrtlllsnts
of the type
helvltoatta4hed.
"It any crountyoffleer is germitt4d to
vrlte, print, and distribute do4um4nts of this
type, a preoedent would be establish4dfor per-
rnlttfngthe Assessor and Collsoto~ af’ Tax48 to
write 5 volume on the question of taxation, the
County Engineer to wpite on4 upon questions of
engfneerfngand road building, the County Health
Officer to vrits one upon public health, aLnd,in
fast, the barn vould be let down by impllaation,
453
Honorabls H.L. Washburn, Page 3
lncurrlng a great deal of expense
publlafrom
funds vhloh obvlomly does not represent a pub-
lic purpose end does not flov frum any statutory
authorlty or requlrenumt.
"Am I, as County Audltor, under the requlre-
aunts of the County Auditom' Law, authorlsed to
pay olalms so lmurrcsd and approve varmnts there-
for from public Punds'o
"I have duly submitted the question to the
Mstrict Attorney and to Hr. Em4st lhlpp, an
attorney of Hruston, and requested their vl4vs.
As a matter of lnformatiou,I attaah copies of
the oplnlon4 given me."
We have also oarefully examined and oonsldend the
enolosed pamphlet and enolosed copies of opinions rendmad
you by Ronarable #Marshallt. Anderson, A8slstant ZXstriat Attar-
ney ol Bsrris County, Taxas, and by Roaorsble Ernest A. Knlpp
attomwy of Houston, Texas, upon the questian,vhleh hold that
the oommlssloners*oourt has no authority to lnaur the propoa-
ed expenditureand that you, as county auditor, should not
approve th4 warrants th4r4for.
We quote from 11 Texas Jurlsprudenoe,pages 563-h-5,
as r0iiav88
"Qmnt14*, being colqpollent parts 0s the
state, have no powers or duties except those
vhlch ar4 alsaz%y set forth and defined in the
Constltutlonand statutes. The statuteshave
alearly defined ths powers, preserlbed the duties,
and Imposed the llebllltlesof the eommlsalnn4n~
marts, the medium through tiah the different
counties act, snd from those statutesmust oome
all the authority vested in the oountles....
It
....Comslsslcmers~uourt8 am fiourts of
Us&ted jurlsdlotlon,in that their authority
axtends only to mstters pwtalning to th4 geneti
welfare of their aountles and that their povers
are only thorn4expressly or iarplledly conferred
upon them by lav, that~ln~ bg th4 Canstltutlonand
statutes of the state....
454
honorableH.L. UeJiburn, Page 4
me courts of Texas have repeatedlyheld that
oounty cossnlssloners~
courts lpsyexercise only such author-
ity a8 l;h~i'~~~ by the Constltutlonsnd statutes of this
state. bundant authoritiesto this effect. We
41te the follovlng:
Article 5, Seotion 18, Texas Constltutlon~
Artlole 2351. R4ViSOd Cl~ll Statutes of Texas1
11 Texas %&spmdenoe, pag4s 563-566;~
Bland v. OIV, 39 SW (26) 558;
Ikann-Warre&Publishlng Co. v. Hutohlnson County,
45 SW (26) 651~
HIS& v; Campimil, 48 SW 26 515;
Landman v. State, 9-fSW !26! 264;
~1 Paso County V. EIL~IS,106 SW 3931
Hnvard v. Benderson County, 116 SIJ(26) 791;
kbson v. ylsrrshall, 118 SW (W) 621;
Ml114 Crountyv. Lswgasas County, 40 SW 404.
APtor a most car&al search ve have been unable to
find any irtatutoryauthority, express or *lied, whloh vould
authorlse the proposed expenditure.
We thinkthatthe opinion and masonlng expressed
by you In your raqusst, quoted above, is lo&oSl SIkd#otmd.
We think that ths 4on4luslon rsached by you and ths attornej8
above named, holdlng the propored expenditure to be unauthor-
lsed, 18 4minontly aomat.
Your qubetlan is thsreeiore
ansvered ln the negative.
very truly yours
ATTOHEEY CXUEHAL OF TEXAS
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion