OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAk 

AUSTIN 

wnumcNmN 

mraur- 

, 

.~ - 

Honorable Edvln Lsc~, Comml~~l~ne~ 

apartment of Publlo Safety 

Austin, Tsxaa 

Dear s1ri 

f the Leglslatime, and all officera, 

cr u>on the duties Of' their Ofilooa, 

ahall take the follovlng Oath or afS.lrnatlont 

‘I, do solemly wear (or 

affirm), that f vi11 Pafihfully execute the duties 

of the office of of ths State of 

Texas, and will to tha beet of ny aSlUty p-escrve, 
gonorable Edwin Lac9, Comlrrionec, rage 2 

. 

protest, and derend the Oon~tltutlon and Law8 

of the Dnlted States and of thlr State; and 

1 rwth0m0re solemn19 avear (or arrirm), that 

‘I have not dlreotly nor indirectly paid, otfered, 

or promised to pap, contributed, nor protised 

to contribute an9 money, or valuable thing, or 

promised any pub110 offioe or employment, aa a 

revard for the glvlng or rithholdlng a votu at 

the election at vhloh I va8 eleotod. 30 he12 ne 

Wd.* 

St vi11 be. observed that’the oath haa rebtlon only 

to bribery of elebtors “at the eleatlon” at Milch the otfloer 

vas elected. The oath does not have reference to nominations. 

So that a county oommlsslonor vho vilfully exercisea his 

paver to employ FersOn8 to vork ur,on the roads of the county, 

to employ persons not peeded in such vork in oonaldoration of 

their votlrg for his nomlx!atlon at a primary election doer not 

Oonstltuto a violation of the Constitutional oath of ofrlce 

80 ad to subject him to removal from the office in the event 

he should be elected thereto at the genePa electlsn. iie nag 

be punlshod under the provisions of Fecal Code, Artlale 196, 

for oorruptlg using his authorit or iFfluonce, but ruch punishment does not carry a disquaUrioatlon for election to the offlee to vblch he haa been nominated; 

In this oonneotlon, It mat be rouembored that the 

Legislature has seen fit to provide that “No offloer in this 

State shall be’removod from,office for any aot he ma9 have 

Oommittod prior to hla election t0 OffiCe.” Article 5986ir PII 

Wnded Act6 1939, 46th Leg., House Bill 493, Seotlon 1. 

! 

A oomals~lonor, then,’ canmt be removed from hla 

Offloe durips the seoond term to which he ma9 have been elected 

for an aot vhloh he has committed dwlng his first tomn in 

ruoh of ri0e. 

In ansvor to your third question, you are advised that 

a County comlesio~er vho vilfully exerolsos hle power to 

employ persons to work upon the roads of the county to engage 

the services of parsota not needed in euoh uork for the ~‘urpoae 

or rurthor:ng hia $?ersor?al polltlcal ambition la t?ot guilty 

t 

or m,lsapplication of publio funds, as that ofienae Is deflrod 

by the I/~~:l~laiurs. In t;?~ 003~ Of’ ~~~~r.~S V3. StCbtO, l’j3 3. k?. 

(26) 105, the Court of Criuitisl Appeals hold that a oount9 

, 
Eonorable Edvln Leoy, ComrPimaioner, Page 3 

oommlasloner vho rlled a flotitlow account and eeoured ad 

oarhed a varrant and gave a portion of the prooeodr in exoeea 

of payment due on an auto to the seller of the auto oould not 

be oonvloted of misapplloatlon of pub110 fur?de, in the abeenoe 

of evidence th%t the money involved vab ln the hands of the 

ooumlssiomr in his offlolal oapaoltp, holding that county 

oommlseloners are not by virtue of their offloo custodians o? 

oounty funda. 

With respect to your fourth and laat quertion, ~rou 

are advised that in the cplnlon of th1.s dspartzeent the vl’ongrui employment or vropgrul approval or .acoounts against the 

oounty for aervlcos rendered by anaJployeo unnecessarily hired 

to vork upon tho I;ubllc roads doe8 not constitute a thoft of 

oounty furds by false pretext. As stated by the Supreme Court 

or Texas in the case or State vs. ‘Klcgsbury, 37 !&IX. 159: 

'There is no vrltten lav of this Stato oxpresely defining the 

act of the county co.Ut in wlavfully epiwovlng an account against 

the county as a penal orrenao.” 

Yours very truly 

AWORm G~itSRAL OF TEXAS 

Riohard Ii. Fairchild 

Assistant 

I 

APPROVEDDEC 5, 1940 

ATTORNEY GEXERAL bF TZXAS