Article 3699, as enanacd, in pnrt reads: “(b) Each offioer rimed in this Act, *2 Eon. Thos. Il. Chandler, Bay 19, 1839, Page 2

'-where he receive8 a salary as compensation 3or this aervlces, shall be errpowered and pemltted to purchase and have chnreed to his oounty all reasonable er;?enses necessary in the proper and legal conduct of his office, premiums on officiala' bonds, prenlum on firo,.bur&lery, theft, insurance proteoting public funds robbery and lacludlcg the cost of surety bonds for his DeFutles, such exncnseo to bo ;?assed on, pre-determined snd elloued in kind end amounts, as nearly OS posslbl~, by the Comnlssloners* Court occe eech Eonth for the ensuing month, upcn the application by each kind, officer, ststinq probable amount oi’ expenditure ond the necessity ror the ex- penses of his ofilco for such ensuing month, irhlch application shall, before presentation to said court, first be endorsed by the County Auditor, lf~any, otherwise the County Treasurer, only es to whether funds are ,. avallable for payment of such expenses.w ‘.

In the .case ot State VS. Cernes, 1OC ST (2) 397, tha ~cou,rt ccnstrued Article S399, Acts of 1933, 4.3rd Legislature, substantlolly the sme~as our present.Artlcle ‘3S99, supra, holding that the expenses, bther then those oxpendlturea in connection with automobiles,. which en 1s outhorlzed to olalm as deductions, are llmlt- ofrioer traveling expenses, ed to stotlonery, stamps, telephone, .and other slmAlor mccnsary cxpansos; the rule of ejusden .&eneris be1r.g applied to qualify the general language enumerated Item end to restriot of the specially its meanlng~to expenses of semc kind or clnss - citing Cameron County vs. Fox (Tex. Civ; App.) 42 S.7 (2) 653; Casey vs? State (Pex. Clr. App.) 289 % 420 (writ rofusod). We quote from the lanSw&e used in the Cesey vs. State case, supra, wherein the jury found and the evidence supported the fact thnt th6 sorvlces of a stenographer to assist the county attorney xero necessary:

=It may be thnt such assistance wan neces- -.sary-in this particular oaso, to enable the county *3 c -. ‘c .

c

Ron. Thos. B. ChamUer, Llay lp, 1939, Pa&e 3 - to dettei dlscherge hls duties;

attorney feet clone does not confer the. but that pey r0r such assistance out of right to fuuds. Such authority m.ust co38 public trora soue appropriate stetute. The one relied on does not @ve it.*

We ake nnoble to’find any stetutory authority authorizing the couulssloners’ court to pay the expenses of the above norned officers to their respective orsicers* aonventlons, e.nd thou&h retsonable in mount, under the statutes referred to, such eqcnses would not under the authorities cited be *necessary in the proper oud lewl conduct of their respective offices.*

It 1s therefore the dpl&n of this dspartanent that rbrtlole 3899, section (b) does.not euthorize the couulssloners~~~ court to ellow to district ond~ county offi- cers ,expcnses incurred in ettendlc5 their rbbpcotivo offl- clers* conventions; Such expenses, though .reasonnble, would not be neoessary in the proper end legel.conduct :, thelr offlcee.

In keeping with your re:ucst, we herewith en- ’ olose.ooples of oplnlons rendered by thfs dqartzent, No. O-331 as mended end ho. O-332. Opinion hoot O-331, not specifically onsxerin5 the point raised by request,: was tithdrnm and in lieu thoreor. our opinion Mo.O-331 aa amnded’ mm rendered.

Trustla5 tb6 above answers your request, t& raeain

Very truly yours Enclosures

E

, L

3