Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

~a.NMN ATWUU-

Bon. lkm A. Orarm

county Auditor

afcL8nnsn comty

vaoo, Taxar

whsmln

county In oonn4otid with &tlill4 f5139, RmTlaad civil Btatutea, 1925; ,X+-N nqulriyartSoularly ~8 to \~

(1) whstbr-.6r pot'distSlot jtulg4i n&ma courtr al-a located fn$faLknnan Uounty are entitle6 to $1,500 aaldrlrS~.~or their arrvlo4a as addltlon8lkuilkal

megbere thq County Juvenllo Board$ (2) if t&a

distal-+ Judgis a- WitLo& to euoh eomponsation, irod Matif beglnklne\date.ohoult8 the ralariw be oal-

judgee am ent It led to ~ofma3a#lonor*11 oourt In dr- aisomtion paymant. t&r populat%on oi 1930 44~~3, tea, In robtpl nwbsra, 98,000. Rut tha United Stataa Of I.940 ahowe the popu3atlon Of

orriotii-c4nsu~ XaLaman ,Couaty tag be 101,824. IQrth4r, ,that th 19~~3 census rlgurer MoLsnnan county wem pub- llehad by the 04~4~4 tliatritdi sup4rYleor on or

about June 28, 19&O, and that imnwllatsly follow- ing publiaatioa of therm oanaua figures, prs- llainary dimuseione warn entered into and plane

Hon. Tom A. Craven, pqs 2 nude by the dlatriot 'judges arr4otea, and the county Judgr or MoLennan cgunty, relativr to the runotioniug or a county 31~4nllr board for YoLennan Gountr a4 pro- vided under Artiols 5139) R&sd Civ,ll Statutes, and the euooeediag,artlolrs. Tbat on August 26, oitloers of such boara were dasignatod and other organization details attended to ~with all al&lb14 membrrr of th4 board psrtlo ipatlxq.

Art.1014 5139, Rsvisrd Civil Statutrs of Texae, 1925, reads aa.follonst

"III any county having a~ population of on4 imnar4a th0ue8ta a. or fmr, 8 ccord ing to

the preoedln& Federal oen8utv, the judge6 ot

the aeveraLdiatrlot and oriixlual district

court6 of suoh oounty, ~together with the

ocmnty judge of auoh oouatp~, are hereby

oonstitut4a a Juvsnile Board ,ror-such

oounty. The annual salary of.eaoh of,the judges of the oivllaad oriiniual distrlot

court8 euoh oounty a8 members or..aald

board ahall be $L~fOO~5.u addition to that

paid the othar distrlot judges of the state,

said additional salary to be paid monthly

out or the general funds oi such oounty, upon the order of the commieslouers o0urt.4

ie have oarefal~y studied the above atatute and have mad4 a march or the authoritfas nhloh beer upon the aub$aotmattor in OOutroVeray, and ws have particularly searoh4d.the droieiona and opinions~oi the auperlor courts nlative to their citings upon tb

constitutionality and application of the .above quoted statute. W4 have,-found the leading cas4lu Taxes to be that of Jones v. Alexander, 59 S. W. (26) 1080,

OphiCSI by hudg4 Sharp Of Cbti~SiOn Or AppWti

and adoptedby.the Supreme Court of Texas.

We quote from that opinion a8 followa: *3 .- Hon. Tom A. Craven, page 3

(at page 1082) Wsing the plain lauguage or the Constitution, which provides that the dlstriot court shall have ‘orl~lual and gemral oontrol over jurisdiction tinors under auoh raguletlons as 46; ie prescribed by law, * a8 a basis upon which to plent the validity of artlole 5139 et seq., which isposee eaaltioual duties upon district judges in oertain counties for whioh extra compensation will be allowed, and when coneidarea in connadtilon with the stvuy lagis1ative aots Imposing many othsr duties not striat- ly judicial upozi district judges ena the decisions or our ccurts bearimz uoon t&la question, we ,are unable to find shy sound reason for holding that this Oat oontra- venes section 40 of artiol~e 16 of the ocstitution or of ang other provision of the Constitutlon.l* (Our enphasie) (at pega 1083)

*The Ccustituticn has pLa06a no upon the LeCiBlature as to the liaitation amount of salaries to be paid district juagee. frh6rer0m. ttts Le@slatura has a right to ‘cam any sot lowaring or raising tha salarlee of dlstriot judgea. In rixing the amount of mch salarles, the Legisla- tura map t&e into consideration the popu- lat ion and size of t\e county, ite taxable valuat3, 3na the gsnaral conditions existing there in. The Legislature in this instanoe h&s men fit to plaoe certain additional duties upon the district judges In certain counties and ha8 allowed extra oompensatlon suoh service. In doiug this, the Legis- lature acted clearly within its ooGetitu- tional pmars. Clark v. FInlay, 93 Tax. 171, 54 3. V. 343, 346. * *4 Hon. Tom A. Craven, page 4

Subsequent to the date that the c.a~e of Joues v. Alexadder was passed upon by the Commla-

sion of Appeals .or Texan au? therearter adopted by the Texas Supreme Court, the case of Holland v.

;Bgr;g C,oule~ (103 S. W. (26) 1067) waa appaaled

of Civil AppeaLa Ffret Supreme Judicial Diatrlct of Texas at Galveston, Texas. The Rolland odse involved the quamtion of whether not a especial dlstriot judge” would be entitled to re- cover in addition to the regular pay of the dietrlct judge an additional amount of money as a member of the Juvenile Board upon a per diem basle under authority of Article 6821 of the Revised Civil Statutes. Thl~ case netiesaarily Involved the construction of Artiole 5139, Revised Civil Stetutea, in conneotlon with

Article 6821,. :

During the time the Holland oaae .WM pending in the Blret Court of Civil Apma certlded~ quea- tlon was aubxltted fran that oourt to the Supreme Court ‘, I pertinent to the questions involved in that controversy. Judge Gerinan, a nember or the Oommlaslon of Appeals, in Ns opinion, whlah was aubeequently adopted bJr the Suprenm Court of Texas, in detemltig the questlom ~ i presented to the ,aourt, wrote as followe:

(102~s. W. (Zd) ~196; at page 197) “. . . We think thaw question le

~.. settled by the plain, lanwage or the \

atetute (Artlole 5139, Revised Civil

Statutes) In light of the dealsion la

the aase of Sonee v. Alexander, . . .

,~ (parentheeea fours )

“The oonstltutionalltg of this artic&e was upheld In thr case of Jones

v. Arexander, supra.~ The underlying

prlnclpln up03 whlcb the law was sustained

was the right of the Legislature to Xrnpoee

upon distrlat. judgea additional duties and

labors, not judicial in charaoter, and be-

oause of suoh Imposed addltional dutlee to

increase their .salariee in a mauuer Oonmelb

Hon. Ton A. Craven, pagr 5

surata &th ihe aerriaes to be periomed.

The languagg of tbs opinion olearlp indl-

aates th’at the statute was construed ee

eetabliahing t&s annual salarle8 of dlrr-

triot, 5udger In oountiea having a 5uvenllr

board at a sum $1,500 psr year higher than

the salaries paid judgea who were not

members of such a board; and not 80 mera

addltbnal oonpenaatlon paid to euoh

jadgas ror servlcse as members of the 5uvcrn- ,110 board. It aee!na to be the, olear import or the tatatute to fix one ealary of euoh

judges anKnot merely to per .them the salary paid other judges and in add.ltlon to pay

them ooapensation ot $1,500 per year for

aotlng as meabere ot the $menlle board.

Vie think the purpoee~ was not to pay thea

$1,500 aa members or, the juvenile, board,

but to inoreaae their salaries $1,500 per

year became of the addltlonal duties and labors. Thice $1,500 la a part of their pay as dlstrlot judgS& Thla being true, It

followa that under article 6821 the special judge Is entltle,d to receive the *sane pap’~ am the regular district judge In whose be-~ halt he 8erves.”

Thersrore, In light of the, wording of the atatuta aul the holdings or the Supreme Court or Texas relevant to Its applloation, and the facts preeentrd to us showing tha,t MoLeman -County la now a County with a population In exceaa or 100,000 persona, we aacordlngly advise you a$ follows:

1. In anawer to your flret queetlan, you are advlsei,.that It is the oplnlon of ,&his depertmnt that the additional suni ot’$l,500 per year should be allowed the regular judges of MoLeman County.

2. ThL department haa held in lte opinion No. O-2337 addressed to the Hon. E. 0. Moaely, Clvfl Dlstrl ot Attorney, ~,Dallaa, Taxas, thet the 1960 oear3ua *6 Hon. Tom A. Crevan, page 6

would bscose controlling when the figures were oom- Filed sod ziade available lm there-~ to tha wbllo. It fore tke oplqlon ot this department that tha Dlatriot Judges of LloLennab County era entitled to such coapen- saticn beglnnlag ae of the date that ZiTdoLennen County quallfled under the etetuta aa being a county %evlng a population of one hundred thousend or over,*

3. It is the opinion or this depmrtrnt that the Comiisoioner’s Court cr KcLsnnaa County has no legal~basis ror sxeroir?w a disars&ioa in datamining nhetber or not to order the pmyment the edditlonel mount specified In tim statute.

Trusting thet the above estltvfaatorll~ enewera your queetlan.9, -we are,