Case Information
*1 \ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
43-c.- .il: r . - enmnmY- \ 1; 3 ~~
q ,p. E '.-
Honorable R.L. Waebburn County Auditor t
Houaton,Texaa ; i
Dear Slur
Your requelBt P
carefully considered by
request as fOllov81
Px-eolnot 1 ia tent~0f3 or mt- lag about 20, vernm4nt proae- 1,vhMlyeuw%.llob- ted by the C0lsal881oMF, tour&y of~laialm, l r 4 any'pmtof the doau- ssion or the author.
6 th4 dosltlllent Slid d0 BOt Mnd tutsa mpcwt required by IAV to "I have carerullg emmIned the atetutes and find no leeel requi PemeBt 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.oner ia authoAted to pxwpen, a bud&et or to lay down the prooedwe therefor, but the budget in thin Cquaty 14 plowed bp tbn *2 gonorable R.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 oonstruction of public roads. I believe that the Coml.saloners~ Court itself has authority to incur any expense reasonably lnaldent to th4 maintenance snd oon- struction OS County roads, but it does not appear that th.ls 4xp4me 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 uomsias1on4r or rm the Oo3laLissioaers~
Co&L Certala offleers have th4 r&at to pre- swibe the system of aaeounts, budgets, and pro- cedure, but 8uc.h authority 1~ not vested in the Coasi8slanerst Court.
"h'ithout '@:dlsouaslcm or the multitude of authoritlee on the subject, It 18 xwasonably ssf4 to 4ay that the law In this stat4 18 that ot3smdssloxaers1 oourt~, vhlle uourts of gaasmil jurisbiotlon vlthln the sph4m oi their autivl- ti48, hsve only 4uuh authority as la givesi by the Constltutfon snd 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 helvlto atta4hed.
"It any crounty offleer is germitt4d to vrlte, print, and distribute do4um4nts of this type, a preoedent would be establish4d for per- rnlttfng Assessor and Collsoto~ af’ Tax48 to write 5 volume on the question of taxation, the County Engineer to wpite on4 upon questions of engfneerfng and 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 a great deal of expense from publla
lncurrlng funds vhloh obvlomly does not represent 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 #Marshall t. 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 expenditure and 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 Constltutlon and statutes. The statutes have alearly defined ths powers, preserlbed the duties, and Imposed the llebllltles of the eommlsalnn4n~ marts, the medium through tiah different counties act, snd from those statutes must 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 thorn4 expressly or iarplledly conferred upon them by lav, that~ln~ bg th4 Canstltutlon and statutes of the state....
honorable H.L. UeJiburn, Page 4
me courts of Texas have repeatedly held that oounty cossnlssloners~ courts lpsy exercise only such author- ity a8 state. l;h~i'~~~ by the Constltutlon snd statutes of this
bundant authorities to 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-f SW 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 Crounty v. Lswgasas County, 40 SW 404.
APtor a most car&al search ve have been unable to find any irtatutory authority, 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