Aftor oarrfully Oomilderlng the matter sub- mltted by you, we are of the oplnlon that the Aeoislon in the ease or PXmSCN Justloe or the Pease, et al vs. OAZvE3~X COUNTY, 151 k@ %nA 87, ooneludas the queetlon. ‘i.e quote as follour the eourt’a oplniont frcm

*From the lsrws presented la the brlcbr, however, It appears that the oontroversy aa it to the aounty’e cult oonoorns the fol- relstse lowlnq itamxt (1) The ruta of $18.00 par mnth Aurlnq the two-year period paid by Pierson to .hls Deputy in exeeee of $60.00 per month ealarp rixsd br the ecamInnloner%~ oourt)....

“The appointment of the As utp was undax Art. S902, whioh prov dae that1 ‘When- f R. c. a.,

wmr an9 Orriobr..r. shall require the xenior8 of Aeputlea os assletante in the psrfolaance hls duties, he may apply to the oountp aomids- (lionera’ aourt of hia oounty iOr authority appoint euoh Aeputles or aaslrtant6, setting out by sworn applloetlon tion eoucht to be filed, the number needed, the posi-

and the amount to be paid, . . . . and said court may zaks its order author- izing the appointment of suoh As)utlsr end fir the canpenaatlon to be paid..rr*

“%ls statute was ca*-plied with at the be- ginning OS 1935 and deputy authorir:ed and hoer salary fixed at 860 per month.

amrove a salary raise to operate 1y vmuld. we hold. be a elear violation

of our atate aonatitutlon, Art 3, para. 83 Veraon' An St Eu I oas lk B&s1 co v. w.ite re1 Tex 13~: 47-P. ‘;.?A tI6!$1 Turner ;. Sarnee 'Tar Clr' ArP.r 19 S. W. SA 325, affirmed on c&h&- &.nAs~ %I. Cola. App., 87 S. 1. 8A !532. The rulr laid down in Canmvn County t. Fox, Tex. Corn. APR., Al S. Y. Ed 483, la not applioeble here. There the without preview authority, am- tax oollaator ploped and pa A ralarfee i to deputies, the items being roportod In hla aooount, whioh wee audited *3 . -

Eon. it. Pi Sexton, Page S

and appmved by the oammiesicnsra’ o’urt.

It was held that it was net essential to obtain approval in advanoe of enployment a?

de~tiss~ that the oamnisnlnnersl oourt had Dower to ratify what it had the orialnal to autho>lza. Here the appll&atloa berer had been made end the salary fired by thb ~alonerx~ court In advanoa or the sex+- value 0r the ser~iosa DeIfOnartd cannof be Into. Kor is-it material that the inquired justlae i aotuelly peid the full?$75,00 to the .Aaputy eaeh month as the 8ervlose wera reader- tundereaoring aura) eA.N

Artiole 3, 3eotlon 53, OS the Constltutlon Taxaa, reads:

“The LeglsIatura shall have no powr grsnt, or to authorize anp aounty or munlel- pal authority to &rent, any extra ooinpsnsa- tlon; ras or allaanee to a publia offloer, agent, servant or eontraotor, after servlos h&s been rendered, or a oontreeot has been entered into, and performed in whole or ln pert; nor pay, nor authorize papent of, any eloisl aroatsd against any oounty or munl- olpalltp of the state, under any sgresmsnt or oontraot, made without authority ot law.”

You are, therefore, regpeotfully aAvlseA that it is the opinion or this de$artamnt that the question pmpounded by you should be answered in ths negative.

Very truly yours