Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
-04- A-a-
Honorable B. F. ?JboKse
omnt y Audit or
riitlalso GouJlty
Edlnbur&, ‘pszps
Eear sirt
Your letter 0
opfaion of th5rr departann
Honorable E. F. &!olCoe, Page 2
swantsen thousand, 6oven hundred (17,700) and in any aounty In this State having a population of not leea than seventy-amen thousand (77,000) and not mare than wvoaty-revan thousand, one hundred (77,100) and in any oounty in this Stata hating a population 0f not less than seventy- BOVO~ thousand, rite bumma(77,500) and not more than oventy-seven thoumid, 61x hundred (77,8OO), aooordlng to the last prmoedlng Fod- aral COMUB, the CanmIssioners Court ia hereby authorized to allaw eaoh Uaremiesiont~ the PUP 0r Birty Dollms (850) per month tar traveling ~xpsnee~ and depre0iatlan on bii~ aut0mabflo while oa orriaial buaine6a. Eaoh #U&I Commleeloner shall pay all expenoer in the operation of euoh autaobila and keep 886x1 in repair irae or any other charge to the county.
*. . ." Article 2540, t’t6Vi66d Civil Statutes, 1925, provldoa .U rOuOW6t
*mrtam entering the duties their ofriom, tha oounty jadgr and saoh ooauntm~ionor 6h6l1 taka the obri0id oath, @nd l&all al60 take a writton oath that ha will not be dirrot- ly or fndlreotly latere6tad in enr oontraot with, or olaim agalmt, the oouaty In whiah he reBid66, UOOpt 6uoh Warrant6 a6 Play i68U9 to him a6 isO6 0r orrice. Za6h oommisoioner mball uooute a bond to .SDQrOVed by thmmaty judge in the mUi8 Of three thOU6md dollar6, payable to the oounty treasurer, oonaitlonrd ior the faithful performmoe of the duties of ,hi6 offloe, that he will pay over to hi6 oounty a3.1 money8 lll~gall~r paid to hian out of oountr rum, aa voluntary paymat* or otherwise, ana that he will not vote or give his aoneent to pay out aounty funds ox- oept ror lawful purpoa08.~ It is assumed in your requoet that oao or athor
0r the thma dates =mii0ma by you is the oorroot date rpiti which to oalculate refund6 due te the eountr U~&OP th@ AOb in quutioa. Your raqw6E raim6 tha point a6 to whet&r
t
Honorable B. 1. bWCee, Page 3
a OOUlltr OOSUEi66iOfBr Who Vote6 raS Md l-OO@iV@S OOUnt$’ funds a6 traveling apen6e under an unoonstitutlonsl stat- ute 16 liable thsvsror.
We intend to deal prIaoipally with this point, althou& und6r our OpInIon #o. O-414& addre66ed to you and approved April 9, 194l, It Is olear that suoh OcPmi86iOaer6 would be liable ror a refund or all payB8nt6 reeefVe& rr0m and artsr the data or the ofrloial prrlImInarP annouaaamsnt oi~the 1940 Pederal Consus, whloh aaoordlng to hour letter, was June $38, 1910.
In our opinion Ilo. 048ll approved Ootsber 16 1940, thlr department held Howe Bill So. EW Oh. 194 &t6 1957, Forty-il?th hegl6lature, unoon6tIt'utIb~ end Void as It l ppllsd to Camsron Oounty. A6 applied to Wlalgo Oouutr, you were 6imilarly advlsed by our opinion Ho. Sa7d approved mroh al, lml.. The rlrst abovs #atIsned opinion IS round In tb monthly x-sports or the Attorney General, Volwie 1, Book 10, pago SlE?. Judge COOleP, In hi6 rrOrk6 on OolutItutI6aal lImi- Voluu 1, EI65hth MItIon, at pag6 ma, saP8:
tatlon6, to k unoonrti- "When a cktute 16 adjud@d ii It had asve~ been. Right6 tution61, it ir u oanaat be built up It;)~6mtraots nhiah de- pend upon It for thslr mn6IdoratIaa an voidj prot6otloa it bh6titUt66 to no on6 Iho b66 cad ao oas 6an punI6hed tar oted under it, hatins ref’u8ed obedienor to before the deol- don wa6 made. Aad what l6 true Of a6 aot void is true also a6 to say pati aa sot in tot0 whloh I6 round to be unaon6tItutlonal, and uhioh, oon6eqruatly, i6, to be regarded u havlag never, at any time, bass possessed Sa any lrgal imae."
The Supreme Court or T-6 in SeISWnS v. Bowsi, Ter. 33!540, did not oonstrue'tho above autharIt7 as announolng a dootrlne that sn unootititutlonal law soul& be no proteatlan offioers or aitl6en6,bsfors the sams had be6a pamed klEon and adjudged invalid. The court in its opinion raid:
Ve are not wIllIng to endorse the propod- tfon, in it6 bmadert ssnle, that a mI6I8tsrIal *4 Honorable B. F. UelCoe, Page
oftloer has ths ri@t and power deal&e upon the aoastltutIonallty or uncoastitutloaslIty of a5 l ot pas6ed with all th e r0rbdity law. It 16 ths duty or such orriioers to exeoute and not dm par8 jw&smn$ upon the law, aad we ars or the olerk t&43 di6triat amart oplnloa that 6hould have rdu0a to hsvs Issued l xeoutioa In vlolatlon of what appearrd to a valid and binding law, Until the ssue had been deslarsd void by the tribunal properly 06nstltu8ed tar that purpo6s.s The oatart or Tgxa6 have never dlreotly pa66sd ths question rai8ed by your requert, t+wlt whether county 6om@l66loner, voting for and moeitiag &n&s under aa A6t orths Leglrlatum, pa6sed with sll apgesraaoo ot a raZld law wloh benefialal iaterert6 Imru rolely to su6h offiaer6 a6 provided la SeatIon l* Houss Bill S&3, 4Sth Ze&rlature, I8 llabls.
A2%101* tMQ, clupra, appear6 to ml60 a 70x-y 6drong Iniennoe or 1IabIlIt.r usdsr 6uah an @at,.-however, br l ettla& roxth as a oondltlon of eaoh oo6ml6sloner!s bond, %hat h6 ars Illegal aad ior 50 Lawful pUrpos@, eanuot be qusrtIoaed. Su6h ssndltIon of the e6s?6ilesionerts bond, hmrwer, applie6 with equal roroe uxd dignity to all 5.Uegal paymentr, whether to the aoaPi6aIonrr6 th?m6elver or mds to other oirlaerr. Court of Oklahma In the ease si Wade
The Su rwe v4 Board or 0, rslonsrs or Hamon Oountg, 17 Paa. and cl00 tmrni
held that ths %#ard of qbunty SO6WI66isn,r6 Oi a smnty Wd not bs penalinred ~uadsr oortaln sots of the Legislature far under 66 unoonotltu- p6pauat of 6alarie6 to oouaty offiarrr tieail losal ot where rush psyasats were made in @ml faith and berom the law Is doolared uaaoa6tltutIonaX, or berore they am adtired by ths proper aifIola1 as to Its unoon6tI- / tutianaltty. <
SUppOl%@d by later deolsI6ns I6 that 68ah, ths Supruse Court of Oklahoma rscogaIse8 au& view8 ths er *&%d faith*~,Ia the lI@t ot a legal. duty offloerr oertaln aatr mlai6terI6l
ELonomnbls B. F. YoKea, Pwa 6
bare 8 t&sot personal intorent distinguiahhable from thoao requlrlng them to perform mini8tarial aotabanaliaial to the publlo.
It is the duty of thencrountr end dlstrlot attornaj8, upon nqueet, to give an opinion er advloo in nrlting to v Bounty or preeinot offloor of their distrlot or oounty, touoh- ing their o~flalal duties (Article 558, Rerinad Clril Btatu@m, 19CS), and It has been the poll02 of the bttornay General of Texas to 80 adrlea Slid offloer8 upon 8uah queStioa8 touohing the publia lntereat, or oonoarning their ofrialal duty. (u- tlela 4999, Retired Civil Statutes) Tha Oklahoma authoritia8 appear to mooanita and be Inollaad to follow the supr~0 &Urt Or lliiO8OUri ifi the OR80 6@8 ail08 1. 'Willial~II, 183 8. W. 1, trap whleh 6pinion, on PYJO 6;we quotet
“In the @aBe at bar, appears itom the NO- Ord that the Attorney ‘@~nOrdL Or the 8tata wa8 oalled Upon Andy gave a written opinion to the aoun- fir aoul't of ~&t&W&y oounty, whloh WO8 the fiSOil 0gant thereof, te the affect that the aot In qUO8tiOB Was UBOOI¶8titUtiOB~, Ftil Snd Void, and that 86id oourt Informed ro8pOndant of 86113 apin- kia not to WY tbo w-at ian, U~Q mtiri0a PLOLL- tioned in the p1Oadfl&-8, aa4 that ii he did 80, he nuld held llablo upan hi8 bond for the emount a0 paid tbereoni
*In the li@t of those diooJ,o8urem, the ra- 8pondant not only had the lag&k rigbtto rai8e the oonstitutionalitg of the aat, but tho8e faots It beoama hi0 Is&al duty to do 80; other- ~5.88 he would h8vs paid the warrurt at hi8 peril.
We therefore hold that fn tihe oa8a at bar the rerpondent had the right tOmi oonstitu- the 06t M 1907." ti0mitg
Se are not hare daolaring that legal duty wa8 iniposed upon the county 4olEi018SiOIl0T8 to lUi80 Wij QueSti@ the aot at tiw time ihny voted au to the aoMt~tutlonalltg pay themselves Under ita pravisione. Momove~, t&r0 is a pro8umption that they, in good raith, aotad under the belief 84110 wan 4onatttutiormL
As pointed out in Wilea 1. Wllmum, supra, auoh, orfioero ware not ppolated (Pr aloeted to pa08 @On8ti-
Iionorabla F. T. HaKea, Page 13 questions and Is 4omon lsnowleUga that oounty
tutional commissioners are not learned fa the law, ooneaquantly, not qualified to intelligently pass upon 8ubh questions.
The ocndltion of the eona;issioner% bond, hwatar, leads UB to believe that the &pm60 Court of Oklahaaa an- nounced what would be the corm& rule Tollow~ping Wile8 v. willi6ma, eupra, to the sit4ot that under euah 8n aot of the X.agi8latura whose ~rovieions are colaly t.~ the personal and bswi0frrl interests 0r the oiriaar, kn0ub~6~e on the part the obfioar it8 unaonstitutionctitp, rooafrad tibnwgh adrioe givan him by his county or diotriot attorney or in- dlraotly fmn the kttornag Saneral or Taxas, Is ayfrlcfent to deprive such orfloor al any aquitios antl fix liability rr4i0 that tiv on r0r illegal papment8 voted r0r and. maelrad under raid unoonstitutional law. In answering the above question, thorarora, It
la the opinion of thfa departniont that the time from whioh pay303nt8 under the Aot8 to oaloulate rerunas due r0r illegal or 1983, 45th Lsgiolatcra, Ch. 194, i8 the data 08 whloh the county oanmissloner raaeired authorltetivo advioa that ruoh AH was UIlOOll8ti tUtiOll&~. Wore ths above Act aonrtitutional, it woulAa0 longo r l ppll to Hidalgo County after off%oW prolhlnary publieetion or th4 1940 Federal Canouo, hum0 pat- wnts made thereafter wow clearly illegal and shauld be ro- fundacl to the countAT.
Youm vary truly ATWIWEY o]EIJERAL OF TIZAS BY / ATTORNEY GENERAL i