Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

April 28, 1939 Hon. Porrester Hancock

Criminal Distriat Attorney.

Wexahachie, Texas

Dear Sir:

lQS9, in wbioh you ask

for the erao- . Among other is a etete- sllla county, Texas $7!KLoo 4tl%riuel tion of $750.00, rhlch library a&L whiah Boar& of Trustees are not under the supertision, 6011-~ trol, or jurisdiction of the looti Comzuisaioner@. ?r$ court."

Your attention is directed to aertain provisions of the Constltu$ion of Texas which appear to have a bear- ing upon this question. Article 16, Section 6, reads aa follows :

"No appropriation for private or dndivl- dual purposes shall be made. A regular etete- ment, tindew oeth;end en eooopnt or the reoelpta and exptmdlturea of all publlo money shell be publfahed annually, in suoh mmner es shell be presaribed br. law.*

Artiole 5, Seotion 50 o? the Con6tltiktlon road8 es tollowsr

The Legis3aturash~lhavo no.pmw to-.' ,' &lve or to lend, or to authorise'%h~.gIvIa&~ ~: .;: _ or landLug, a? the oredit of'the~state ln &i(L or; or to any parson, esaooietlti~ or oorpora~ .~.~ tloa, wheth-ar manlolpel or other, or to ple&a

the.,oredlt of the State in any manner khattm- ever, ror the payment bf the U.ab3.lttia8, pro- aoge- ... pent or ~pospe&ive; of any lndlvlduel.. M tion ot Lii e.fiduela, munloipel or'othar oow poretion' : tsodvt3r l .a

Artiole S, Seotion 51 oi'the 4aonetitutioa reed8 . ee followzt,

9fhe' Legisieture shall have no.power to zuike any grant 'or eittborlze the making of any grant qC pub&lo money to any iadirtdnal, as- sociatkon or lndivldnals, mtmiolpal ore other oorporationa wbat80ever....w

Artic$S, Seotlon 52 of the Cdnsti&ion reed81 as follows:

*The Legislature shall have no power to authorize any ccmnty, oltp, tom or other polit&~cel oorporatlon or sabdiviaioa OZ the State to lend its oredit or to grant pub110 *3 money or thing of v&LLue in aid of, or to any individual, association or corporation whatsoever, or to become a stookholder In such c?rporation, essocletion or ooa?pany; . ..."

Article 11, Section 4 of the Constitution reeds as follow%:

*No oountp, city, or other smnloIp&l corporation shell hereafter'beoomo a sub- SerIber to the oepltal o? any private uor- poratlon or assoolatlon, or make any eppro- prietion'or donetton tqthe same, or in anytiles loan Its &edIt$ ‘but t&s shall not be oonstrue&to.in any way e??eot any obli- gation heretoiore undertaken pursuant to law.*

Artiole 8, S&,Ion S of the C&tItutlon4rsads e ~~ipo18?

Vaxes~ ehsll be levied and oolleoted tiy general lairs and ?or publta purposes on4. St

The Commissioners* Court Is meeted the Con- stltutlon.and 1s.a body exeroIsIng delegated powers. It hda no authority exoept that oongorrod upon It by the aon- atltution and laws of th5.s steto. (Bland vs. Orr, 89 sll 558;lU.l~ C0untJr~~.L8mpe8es 00~1ty, 40 SW401;Beldrln va. Travis County, 88 SW 484 and Art. 5, Sec..18 o?.the Gonstitutlon or the State o? Texas).

The question es to ubat extent oan publio f’unds be used by governmental bodies for charitable pnZIQose5 has aaused aonsidsrable coniliat in the deoisloni3 o? the dirrerent courts, and the courts have made the ?urthsr distinotion as to the authority o? the partfcular body to esjtpend public mone~&¶ as to the purpose tar whhicrh the money was appropri&ed ?or e public purpose.

In Rulfng Case Law, MO. 7, page 936, we rind the *4 following statement:

"Counties being created for purposes of government, and authorized to exeroise to a limited extent a portion of the power of the state gooverument, have always been held to aot strictly within the powers granted by the legislative aot establishing them. hccordlngly, the statute is to them their fundamental law, and their power is only coextensive with the power thsreby expressly granted, or ne~essarlly or reasan- ably Implied tram Its granted powers. Al2 the powsss with whiah the sountr Is intrustsd.: . are the pswsks a? the state, a@ all tho dutIes,wIth whIoh they are ohargod sro the duties o? the state, and honoo these pmsrs,.

and pririleges ma7, In general, be ohan@," I Bodi$ied or taken away. Perauent to mxoh, ~1 gsnerel purposda a? govorapmt a rc.oovAatf ia+ :,:,. power to reoslre sad hold prope~,'~?&iaour ' debts and lIebIlifie8 wIthid statutory Umits, tq make sontracts through its lew?ully oon- . stltutsd 0KI~\ers,~an4, generally, to manage

all the'business affairs of the oounty;:' Xa general, the pow& to inour obligetSoons, ita& ' to lcmy taxes onthe peaplo of the ~wmnt~.and on their property, is given ts poun~ie~ br ~. s$etutq but this Is a power that must be ,' onlJ.111 the rtu-theranoe of OOwty exerolsed or pub110 purpo~." '~

The publId purpoee.?or whiuh money may be reined oomes up in a vsrlety of ways; and will be bristly rotiew- ad. Uesury w. City af Laredo, 66 Tes. 406, the City a? Laredo passsd an ordinsnoe giting exolusire 0cmtroL otdr sohools wIthIn its limits. ~ssury signed a contreof with the trustees that were appointed the County Judge, and on request for psyment'aad refusal brought 8uIt for amis. The Supreme Court deslsd his claim and held that the.method by whloh publia schools are oreated was not followed, and thatthe public sohool ?uad aould be used only for the publio sohools of Texas.

Hon. Forrester Eancock, April 28, 1939, Page 3

Attorney Genersl Looney on Map 19, 1913, gave an opinion to the county judge o? Shelby County, Texas, that an appropriation by the Commissioners' Court to aid a county fair or to make an exhibit at the State yai.r was unauthorized in Texas.

In Bennett vs. City of Lafmange, 112 S? 482, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that au appropriation of $75.00 per month to the Salvation Army to be ased in the public oharlty of the oity and. eooounted ?cs mcmth4 wss a vIolatIon of the Constitutional provision that *no money shall ever be taken from the publI% *eastmy, direatly or Indlreotly, In the aid of any charah, seat or denomination or my s%otarisn Institution.

The osse of St, Yary*8 Soh001 vs. Brora et al, 45 Md. ?ilO, was e ault by a tayp&yeir to res~rbt the mey%r and oItycounsslo?~t~%fiosagr~tibgappro- psiatlons to serre~ohsrltsble Institutions. Then oou?t‘ said: .~ "

*It Is oertsin, we suppose, that the' oity~oounsel shmld bate %o power to mske eppreprIetions to these institutioas simply es suoh, not baoause memAy of the very humane end leudlble obj%ots and purposes for which they are or%at%d .th%Ir founders and propoters; it is beoausg of the a&v31 serrloe as benofI.8 render the olty that any alaim oould.be urged ior their support from the city treasury.' And If this be so, what guarantee has tha'eity that s~errices are benefits will aoarue, aosmensorate dth the appPo$rIations that sre g!id%? The same principal that n%uld sustain appropriations of every private ah3001 and -ohsrity In the ci);Y**

Taking oognizance of the prohibitions Of o~3T Constitution, aad recognizing the raot that the C%xaission- em* Court has only suoh~powers as the statutes pe?'uIt, It is our opinion that the CoamIssioners~ Court is without *6 authority to make appropriations of publia money to any library controlled end operated by private individuals however worthy the cause might be.

Very truly pours ATTQENXY GENISRAI, OF TEXAS BY ,@&&‘=

)~ ~W. P. watts

Assiistant