I_
OFFlCE OFTHEAmORNEY--GENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTiN
Honorable R. C. Wilson ',a:
'.
county Aualtor
Gray County
FaRpa, Terns
A
Dear sir:
Your reoent requ ion OS this de-
partmf& on the above atat been reoeivd.
ureau and a park.*
*s Amotatsti-CivilStat-
e Bate OS pamsage 0r
issionera Oourf8 in all Nmn-
ulation at not less than tweaty-
arty (%%,050) and not more
thoumad (%3,000),~ ~aooording
ealng Federal Census shall
nd autb0rify to provi&e r0r
faoillt$esantlsuch tlmmslal aid af8tie satd
ComRlasioneP~eourta may lle%a~mboess~ry to Ped-
era1 or stats governwmnt agenolee and bureaus
having adtivftieeor mintmining p8?ojeots wlth-
f.nthe bounty 5.nwhiah the rsaldCormisaione~s
court is louated. iietrr1939, 46th &ar&, H. B.
#PSO, % 1.r
RoonorableRv C+ Wil'aoh,page 2 .'
tion
be enaots8;:p~o~idO4,.~that.,nothing hereinoon-
tained:ehdU.be‘,aolwtrgeb.,tO.prOh~bit:~the;~legls-
..."lature';bonr~~paasing-.spea~~l;la*rs, fOr :thepre-
servatica~.o~~ganrs anil.fleh.Of this State in ':
certain l.OoaUties.~~-. :~+ : ~-.I',-'.:-
.~:' .;
::
',~
~.'i' ,,
..,,_
~, ..:.:
.~,.~
?&is: &ie.of, ~Saith~,~s~i,Sta~& &.m,ed 739;. ~.heids
in eireot.'.t~~.'.if'~~ub~tantiel~reason roi-'olassifgl&g muui-
cipalitiesby~,~pdLatioa;appeara,suuh ~Olaa~ifioatlonand
legislationapg~ioable~to~snOh~~Ol~s8fficatfon legenerally
sustained..,'~Ro~ever, the constitutionalprohibition ageinst
,%peciaLlati~.Oannotbe:.e%adOdby maldng laws-~applioabls to
a pretend& ~Olass,and-that a statute olassifyingmuniOi-.
palit~es~~by~populatio~-~-ia~.:~~p~Oirt~~~.~-it.th~ populatfon~doea
uotafford,a fa~~basis,:-ior~,Ollassiiioation; Li:the.statute
nerelg 'dea$gnatea-a sfnglsmania~~~3ity.~er~~tha guise or
classifging:bp~pogulation;, and that a valid alasaification
of municipalities by populationmust not exOh.ldeother
muuiaipalltie~from enteriug~.sue~h~OlasS~~~~Oat~On,~~O~ attain-
lug the epecified.populationti i. ,:;' '. .....;~,:.
ionora& R. c; Wlson, page'3
.n*in so'far as.the courta which u&z-
take to define the basis uRon which the
~blasslficntion nust rest how that the Legis-
lature cannot, by a pretended classification,
e7ade a.consiLtuti0na.lrestrictioa, we fully
ooncur with them. Rut ii"they hold ,thata
olassificatioa which does not manifest a pur-
pose to evade the ConstLtution_is not~suffi-
,oientto support a statute as a.general law
merely because, in the co*urt'sopinion, the
olasslfioation is unreasonable, we are not
prepared to,concur. To what class or classes
of persons or things It should ep-~lyIs, as
-a general~rule, a legislative question. When
the intent of the Legislature is clear, the
policy of the law is--amatter which Oo&s not
conaern the courts.'
-
-Xf.the classiflcation~of titles or couu-
;ties:isbased on population, whether an act is
regarded as-special anii'ichetherits operatio,n
is uniform throughout the State, depena upon
whether popupulation affords a fatr basis fox
the classification with reference to the mat-
ters to which it relates, and whether the re-
sult it accomplishes Is in fact the real clas-
sirication u?on that basis, and not a aesignns-
tion of a single city or county to which alone
Yt shall agplg; under the guise of suoh olss-
sifioatlon. parker-Washington County v. Kansas
City; 73 Ken. 722, 85 F. 781." (Also see the
oases of 3x purte Sizemore, 8 3% (2d) 134* and
Randolph v. State, 38 SYJ2d 484).
'The"%se of,Hexar County vi'Tynan,
_ _ et al, 97 SW
26 467; holds in effect that the LegZslature may on e pro-
per end reasonable olassfflcation enact a general law which,
at the tLne of f.tsenactment, is applicable to only one
oounty, provide& the application is not so inflexibly fixed
as to prevent It ever becoming applicable to other countfes
md that the Legislature mey~cl3s3ify counties on basis of
population tor purposes of fixins compensation of county
and precinct officers, but such OlaSSifiC3tiOA must be based
.on real distinction and must not bo sn arbitrary device to
give what is in substance a local or special law, the form
of a general la;v. And the case furthm holds thst the courts
in determi&n2,r~hathor a Law is public, ganerti, Spociel Or
. .
hnorable R..C. Wilson, page 4
..
looal, Will look to the substance snd practicgl operation‘~
rather than t0 its title, SO?%, phraseology, sinae other-
.v&so a prohibition OS the fundmental lariagainst speoial
legislation wild be nugatory; ana t0 jirstffg pmiq 0110‘
county in a very linited and restricted classification by.
'theLegislature,~there nu.st be soze reasonable relation
bdsieen the situation of the counties classified and pur-
posos~and objectsto be attained, au& classitication can-
not be cdoptsd~arbitrcrily on a ground v&ich has no founda-
tion in differonce of situat.Zonor circ~xzstsncss0S'countiss
placed in.different classes. The act reducing salaries of
officers in counties of'over tvm Rundred and ninety thousand
end less than three hundred and ten thousand population vxas
held unreasonable hnd arbitrary in its clossifdkation and
void as a special law.
:
Wi Quote fro= the above mentio~ed,opinion aa,fol-
lo=: ~. ,. : ., .:
.x aThe rule is that soclakification can- .
i- not.be adopted arbitrarily upon a gro~undwhich
has no Soundation ind5Sforonce of situation
' or circumtances of the nunicipalitles placed ~.::~
.5.nthe different classes. There ml5t be SOi9D
reasonable relation between the situation of
nuuicipalities classified in the 3urgose and
tie object to be attained. There must be sane-. ..
thing..,. which in sop1ereasonable dqree ac-
counts for the division into classes.**
Article CZilb-Z,'supra,'applies only~to counties
having e population of not less than 22,050 and not mre
than 23,000, according to the last preceding redera census:
The object and purpose of the statute under consideration IS
to pernit ccxxissioners~ court of the counties co* xithin
the above designated population brackets to provide for
facilities znd such financial aid as the said oozxissioners*
cotit rxiydeeianecessary to Federal or state governsxent
agencies and bureaus having sctivities Or riaintaining pro-
jects within the oountg in which the fmnziissioners'Court
Fs locztted, h natural class, xould include al.1the CountieS
in "de state. The above m3ntiomd statute authorizes the
qp&ssioners’ court in counties having a population of not
less than 22,050 and not zaorethan 23,000 the additional
p&or and authority ra set out in the statute. Ths number
Rotiorab1e.R;C. Wilson, Rage 5
..
of inhabitants residing within the ~county, alone, c¬
serve in my reaSon&bh or natural cmner to indicate the
necessity or desirability of Remitting such county through
its coimlssioners* court to exercise the power and authority
8s provided in reticle 2351b-2. Ue think that the above
classification is a mre designation vihich is no classifica-
tion at all, but,.on the contrary, as inverted and discrim.i'-
natory as the law considered by the Supreme Court in the case
of Rexar county vs.~ Tynan, supra. .' ,~
‘. .
AS above 'statedwe have'here '& -tatice of arbl-
trary designatioa, rather than classification. The above
quoted statute.attenpts to regulate the afSa$rs of those
omutles cozuingwithin the~above designated Ropulstion brack-
ets in a'mamer violative of Article ITI, Section ,56, of the
State Constitution. Thtiilast r,entionedsection of the Con-
stitution, is designed, in part, to insure that the system
of comty~gmermeot shall .be as unifom as is possible. It
is intended to.prsvent thenpassage of laws which discrinlnatc '
betvveenthe counties of this state:without adequate am.lsub-
stantial difference in the qha,ractsristicsof the individual
_ cotities indicative, rationslxy, of the necessity for,the'
discriminationi
In view of the foregoi=, you arerespectfully
advised that It is the opinLon of thin deRart:zmt that the
law under consideration clearly violates the provisions of
mtfcle III, Section 56, of the State Cocstitutlon and its
miifest spirit and~purpxe, and it is therefore UUCOn6titu- .
tional and void..
Trustin that the foregoing fully answers your in-
quiry, we remin
Yours very truly
d?T?o;rn GIxERhL OF* Tzxtss
s.9: jm APP OVEDMAY 23, 1940
J5LA-uz.Ld