Case Information

*1 “8‘

i

d t- +

[

;* .I

;-1 ,+I ; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS I

AUSTIN

Honorable J. 1. Allen

County Auditor

mult Oounty

Oreenvllle, Texas

Dear Sir:

Your request for op

carefully considered by this

request as follovsr

"The Hatlonal Oua

ed in Oreenv

te of Texas. expense on the traln- 3.ng to them 4600.00 fund of Hunt oounty. le to find any conetitutfonal or statutory

endlture or donation of county funds by urt for the purposea above desarlbed. The court8 of Texas have repeatedly held that county commbaloners* courts may exercise only suoh authority M is conferred by the Constitution and Statutee oi thilr State. There are abundant au+&orities to this effect. We cite the *2 follorinsr

Article 5, 8eatAon 18, Texas Constltutlont titlole 2351, Revlired 01~11 Statut88 of Texas; Texan Jurl6prude&xoe, Vol. 11, pagea 563-566~ bland v6. Orr. 39 SW 558) &unn-Warren F+ublLshlng Company VII. Hutohl8on County, 45 SH 26 651;

Rogg vu+ CampbeIl, 48 SW 2d ; zmdman ~6. State, 97 lW 26 26 3 Rl Paso County VI. ,Elu, 106 i?W 2d 3931

Howard v6. &mdOr6Gn County, 116 SW 26 2791; Oobson VI. Mar8hal1, 118 SW 2d 621 J&l116 county VII. Lampas* county, i 0 Blf 4q4.

This department has repeatedly ruled to the 6am orreot . For uxample, opinion go. O-591 of thie department hold that the oomml6alou6rs* court of Calv68ton County, Texau m ilthout authority to expend county fund6 for the employ- mtmt of life guard8 for Qalveaton Beach2 opinion Ilo. 0-1085 of this Depwtasnt held that the ooasisslonerr* oourt of Marion County, Texas *a6 without authority to y the 6alary of a game *ardent and opinion go. O-l@99 of this ~ epartment held that the r

oommi88lonera~ court of Ber&r Cqunty, Texas, was without author- ity to expend oeunty ?undk?or Tire protootlon ?rom the City of 8anAntord.o and in the county.

Confer6noe opinion Bo. O-2662 of this Department, d&ad February 4, 1927, Book 62, p. 46, 1926-1928 Attorney General*6 Report* p. 390 et @op., written by Bonorable D. A. Wamom, FIrat Ansl8tant Attgrmby General, held that the com- mia8lonersf oourt had no authority to appropriate pub110 fund6 to oharltablr orguclsations aged oontrolled by private individual6 and t&t Conatltutlon a? 1876, tit. 3, ZWotioae50, 51 and 52; Art. 8, Seation 3; Ait. 11, Section 3, and Art. 16, Beotion 6 referred to, prohibit the appropriation of pub110 fund6 to ohiwltles op6retW by private lndfvlduals.

Opinion No, O-1001 of $h.le departrunt hold8 that the oommis6lone~~ court did not b.avq the authority to donate oounty funds to the Tuberoulosls Assoolatlon, to the American Rational Red Cro8.a or to othw charitable or other oqanisations making requests for u*6ch donatlond.

h

gonorable J. 1. Allen, Page

In vl6v 0r the foregoing authoriti66, you ar6 r6- ~p&,?ully advl66d that it 16 th8 opinion Of this dopartrsnt row QWStiOn should b0 answered in the MgatiVe, it SO uwwmwd.

?iOw?S VOVtW&iY ATTORNHX @ENBULL OF TElcIL8 irm. J. hn-i.iq ii56iSturt