### OF EXAS

GROVER

SELLRRS ~USTXN11.TEXAS

Hon. Charles R. Martin 

### county Auditor Opinion NO.

### 0-6551 Re,: Paymentof traveling expenses Harrison. County of the Commissioners’ Court of Marshall, Texas Harrison County,under the provisions of Houss Bill Noi 

### 84, 49th Legislature andunder the provisions of the Harrison CountySpecial RoadLaw’ Dear sir; 

### (1931).

We are in receipt of your letter of recent date requesing the opinion of this department on the above stated matter. Wequote from your letter as followsr

“The last Legislature passed an Act, samebeing H.B. No. 

### 84, amending Article 2350, Title 44, R.C.S., andother amendments, whereby they rece,ive raises in pay according to assessed valuations.

“Under Section la, the Commissioners~ Court in each county is hereby authorized to pay the actual traveling expenses incurred while traveling outside of the County on official county business never to exceed Three HundredDollars ($300.00) in any one year for each said official.

“In Harrison Countywehave a special road law, enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, ‘a great numberof years back! and section 10 of said law provides as follows: Each County Commissioner andthe County Judge of said court whentraveling on county business relating to the roads or highways of said county shall be allowed the sumof Seven 

### (7~) cents per mile as traveling expenses to be paid out of the RoadandBridge Fundon sworn statement at the end of each month; provided that the county shall not pay to the County Judge or anycounty commissioner in excess of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars as traveling ex- .penses for any one month.’

“The Harrison County Road Lawrepeals Chapter’42, Acts of the First Called Session of the 27th Legislature (the samebeing knownas the Davidson Road Law.

“Question, under H.B. 

### 84, would it be legal for the County to pay the actual traveling expensesHon. Charles R. Martin, page 2 (O-6551)

incurred while traveling outside of the County on official county business, in addftfon to the traveling expense allowed under OUPSpeofal Roadlaw, quoted above, either on business connected with the Road andBridge Fund, or General Fund, and if so, would the CountyJudge be entitled to the traveling expenses also as set out under H.B. 841

“Also, where the Commissioners Court of a county should decide to send one of its membersout of the county with reference to the leasing etc., of lands ownedbythe Permanent School Fund, which lease money is paid to the Available School Fund, would it be legal to pay this expense out of the Available School Fund or should the samebe paf.a out of the General Fund3 H.B. 84 does not say from what fond this expense should be paid.”
HouseBill No. 812, Chapter 

### 156, Special Laws, Regular Session, 42ndLegislature, 1931, Znpart provides:

“Sec. 10. Each County Commissioner andthe County Judge of said county (Harrison County) whentraveling on county business relating to the roads or highways of said county shall be allowed the sumof Seven (7$) cents per mile as traveling expenses to be paid out of the Road andBridge Fundon sworn statement at the end of each month; provfdea that the county shall not pay to the County Judge or any County Commissioner in excess of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars as traveling expenses for any one month.‘” (parenthesis ours)
HouseBill No. 84, 49th Legislature? in part provides:

“Section la. The Commissioners9 Court in each county is hereby authorized to pay the actual traveling expenses incurred while traveling outside of the county on official county business never to exceed Three HundredDollars ($300) in apy one year for each said official.

“Sec. 4. That all general laws laws in conflict with the foregoing 1 or parts of general ct, be, andthe same are hereby expressly repealed.”
House Bill 84which amendsArticle 2350, Vernon’s AMOtated Civil Statutes, is a general law relating to the salaries of county commissioners andthe traveling expenses of the commissioners’ court. House Bill No. 812, Special Lawsof Texas, Regular Session, 1931, Chapter 

### 156, is a speoial law applicable to HarrisonHon. Charles R. Martin, page 3 

### (o-6551)

County; Section 10 of said Act provides for the payment of traveling expenses of the county judge andthe county commissioners whensuch travel is in connect ion with the roads landhighways of said county. The enactment of ageneral law does not, by implication, operate as a repeal of the special law, although both laws relate to the samesubject matter. Also, the general law is applicable in all cases not embraced by the special act. (Townsendv. Terrell, 

### 16 S.W. (2d) 

### 1063; Ellis v. Batts, 26Texas 

### 703). We note, also, that HouseBill No. 

### 84, supra, by the terms of Section 

### 4, repeals only general laws or parts of general laws in conflict therewith; consequently, it would not operate as arepeal of the special law, insofar as the samesubject matter is covered in the Harrison County Special Road Law. The special act is construed as constituting an exception to the general law. (Cole v. State, 170 S.W. 1036) It is therefore the opinion of this department that the provisions of the Harrison County Special RoadLawwould control with reference to the payment of traveling expenses of the county commissioners andthe county judge insofar as such travel is related to the roads or highways of said county. rt is our further opinion that the payment of traveling expenses, other than travel relating to the roads andhighways of said county, should be governed by the provisions of HouseBill 

### 84.

With reference to your question as to whether the county judge would be entitled to traveling expenses under the provisions of HouseBill No. 84, wenote that the Act refers to “the comissioners’ court” end sets the maximumamountto be paid for traveling expenses in any one year for “each said official.” In view of the fact that the county judge andthe several commissioners constitute “the commission es’ court” (Art. 

### 2342, V.A.C.S.), it is our opinion that the county judge would be entitled to actual traveling expenses under the provisions of Section la of HouseBill 84, subject to the limitation that the county judge’s traveling ~expenses in connection with the county roads andhighways of Harrison County should be governed by the provisions of the Harrison County Special RoadLaw. I

With reference to your inquiry as to the proper fund with which to pay the traveling expenses authorized under the provisions of Section la, HouseBill 84, this department held in Opinion No. 0-6604 that said expenses should be paid from the County General Fund. We quote from said opinion as follows:

“In regard to your question as to which fund the actual traveling expenses should be paid from whenincurred under authority of Section la of said Art. 2350, R.C.S., as amendedby 

### said H.B. No. 84, we quote from the SupremeCourt of Texas (Bexar Countyv. Mann, 157 

### S.W. (2a3 134) as follows:Hon. Charles R. Martin, page 4 

### (O-6551)

II1 All county expenditures lawfully authorized to be madeby a county mustbe paid out of the county’s general fund unless there is somelawwhich makes thema charge against a special fund.’

“Therefore as 

### said Section la of Art. 2350,R.C.S., inwhich authority to pay traveling expenses is given, does not makethema charge against any special fund, weconclude that such traveling expenses should be paid from the 

### General Fund.”
With reference to your question as to the proper fund 

### from which to pay expenses incident to the leasing of the Harrison 

### County Public School Lands, we find no 

### constitutional or statutory provision that would authorize the payment of expenses of this character from the Available School Fund.



### Art. 2826, V.A.C.S., 

### provides:

“It shall be the duty of the Commissioners Court to provide for the protection, preservation anddisposition of all lands heretofore granted, or that may hereafter be grant~tto7th;e;o~~~ for education or schools. Const.,

. , . Ourcourts have held that the expenses of acquisition, preservation and sale of school lands mustbe paid out of the County General Fund. (Brazoria County v. Paagitt (Civ.App.3 160 S.W. 1170, (error refused); Taber vs. Dallas County, 106 S.W. 332; Dallas County v. Club LandandCattle Company, 66S.W..294; Pulliam v. Runnels Co., County, 57Tex. 572). 15 S.W. 277; andTomlinson v. Hopkins

In the case of Dallas County v. Club ‘LandandCattle Company, supra, the SupremeCourt, in justifying. the placing of the expenses of administering the school fund..as a charge against the General Fundof the county, used the foll.ing language:

1’

. . . . Asto the reason of the provision; it maybe urged that, since the county is madeamere trustee, it is unreasonable to suppose that it was intended to charge it in its individual capacity with the expense of administering the trust fund? The answer is that while in legal contemplation, the county is but a trustee, andthe school fund the beneficiary, the county has an important interest in the maintenance of public schools within its limits; andthat it is not unreasonable that the framers of the constitution should have deemed it politic to make,.

Hon. Charles R. Martin, page 

### 5 (o-655l)

the expense of administering a fund set apart for the support of public schools in the county a charge upon its general revenues. Since the lands are the gift of the state for the special benefit of the educational interest of the county, it is not ahardship to require the county administration to hear the expense of converting the laud into money.

. .'I
In view of the foregoing authorities, you are therefore advised that expenses in connection with the leasing of school lands should be paid from the County General Fund.

Wetrust that the above andforegoing satisfactorily answers your inquiries.
Yours very truly,
ATTORNEY

GBNERAL

OFTEXAS By/s/ J. A.~Ellis J. A. Ellis, Assistant
APPROVBD

JUL2, 

### 1945 /a./ Grover Sellers ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS
APPROVED:

OPINIONCOMMITTEB BY: BWB

, CHAIRMAN
JAE:&J:wb