Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN iionorable ShelbyLong County Attorney JeffersonCounty Beaumont,Texar PI%? ($t.OQ)Dpllars dally aa is providedin aeatlon 3. 'BlJr'weatlon involvesthe rlght of the eommlaslonerr to red+veAhla additionalcompenaatlonover and above their udtS> ColPpensatlonpaid them as county oom- missioners. "The county commisslone~sof Jeffereoncounty were doslgnattdand createdroad commiselonersby Senate 3111 i+Ia. 59 of the 32nd Leglelatum, 1911, ae veil aa the Bill above rirfcrred to, House Bill No. 431,.and it iion.Shelby Long - page 2 is In this capacity that thay bass their alalolfor Tlve (35.00)bollaraper day on actual servlcs8 . performedas dralgnatedia aeotlon 3 of liousoBill No. 431." The aota vhlch you refer to are Senate Bill ro.69, Chavtar7, page 50 and Eouaa Bill No. 431, Chapter 24, pnga 167, Specialand Looal Lava, RegularSeerion, 32nd Leglalature,1911. Tha first rot,& B. go. 69 mare17 oanatltutaaeach wmber of the ;;zaalonara Court a road oonniaalonerof his reapactlvadla- The laoond aot H. B. lo. 431 oontalna tha provlalonfor myme& of $5.00 a dy to each county oomml8~lonar, vhen aoting as road oommlaslonrrfor aervlcaaactuallypar?ormad*not to exoeed ona hundred($100.00)per month, vhioh &all be paid mt of the road and bridgefund, vhan tha acaount shall have been npprovedby the Commlraloneral Court. We have heretoforeheld that House Bill go. 431 vaa aonrtltutlonal.See OpinionNo. O-3992 Issuedby thlr departmentOctober 7, 1941, cop7 of which 1s attaohed. In the case of Quinn v. Johnron,County Judge, et al, 91 S. W. (26) 499 (1936),vrlt of error dlSmlSSed,the Be8unmnt Court of Civil Appeals held tht House Bill Ilo.528, Chapter161, Generaland SpaalalLava, 40th Lagl8lSt~ (1940),aupplamanta Nouae Bill go. 431, Chapter24, Acts of 32nd Legislature(1911) by provldlngthat the Commlaalonera l Court of JeffersonCounty nay purchaaoautomobllaafor uao of county conmlralonera vhan actingaa road auvarvlaor8.The court in that opinionupheld the validityof the l uppleunentaryact authorlzlngthe purchaseof automobilesand In effaotheld that both of the Speolalact8 vere conatltutlonal under Article8, Seotion 9 of the Taxar Con- stitution,vhloh provldea that %a Leglalaturama7 Paul local lava for the maintenanceof the public road8 and hlghvay,without the looal notice requiredfor apealnlor local lava." The Court saldr "Underthe authorityof the above cases,ve have no doubt that tha specialJefferson county road law assailedin this suit is oonstltutlonal.It purports to deal only with the matter of providingtransportation for the limiteduse of the members of the commiaaloners~ court in malntatilngand keeping osen an efficientsystem of roads and vhile engagedin supervlslngthe hlghvay systemof the countyfor such purpose, The specialroad lav of Jeffersoncounty,of vhlch the particularact in questionIs but aupplemcntary,lmposesnumerousduties upon the commlsslonerr aa supervisorsof roads which are 57: Ron. Shelby Long - Page 3 - not lmpowd upon them as ooplloiralonerm b7 the general law. The Leglalature, ln VanSing the lpeolal lot ln question, reoognltedthat certainPacullar oondl- tlons exlat within Jeffersoncountyvhlah justify the county ln furnlahing modes of conveyance to the cotirrlonera as an ald to then in dlrcharglag effl- olantly their duties as road aupervlror8.” The Beaumont Court in reaohlng ltr aonalualon as to the constltutlonallty of Bourns Bill lo. 431, Chapter 24, Act8 of 32nd Legislature (1911) rallod upon the (Mae of Crov, et al, ve. Tinner,47 3. Y. (24) 391, by the Waco Court of Clrll Appeals, which vaa adopted b the Supreme Court in Tinner v. Crov, 124 Tex. 368, 78 9. W. 926) 588. In vrltiog the opl.nlon for the Uaco Court, Juatlca Alexander, rho la nov Chle? Juatloe of the Supreme Court, held conrtltutlonal a special lav for Rlll County vhlch authorized the ComPriaalonerr’ Court to ralmburae county codssionsrs from the Road and Bridge l%nd for all expenses incurred by tham In operating their private autoaiobilea vhan in- specting the roads of the oounty. The deolalona above awntloned are not at variance vith the opinion of the 81 Pa80 Court of Cl011 Appe6l.s in Jaeaon v. Smith, 161 S. W. (26) 520. Tha Aot (Art. 235om, note, Vernon’s Annotated Clvll Statutea) fnvolvad in that case Yam a aogoalled “bracket lav” vhloh vaa passed a8 a general lav and not as a special road &v and It imposed no nev or added duties on tha Commlaalonera for vhioh the Legislature Yam authwlred to provide rslmbursamant or comvenaatlon. The lpaoial road lava for Jeffar- aon Couhty vhloh you inquire about do lmpoaa added and nev duties on the Co~salonera which are not lmpoaed by ganaral lav. See our Opinion-NC. O-5328, relating to a apeolal road 1aV far Galveston County, cop7 a? vhlch la attached hereto. You are, theraiore, advised that both of the special acts lnqulred about are conatltutlonal. Your8 very tNly