OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAk AUSTIN wnumcNmN mraur- , .~ - Honorable Edvln Lsc~, Comml~~l~ne~ apartment of Publlo Safety Austin, Tsxaa Dears1ri

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, andwill 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

## rwth0m0resolemn19 avear **(or** 

## arrirm), that

‘Ihave 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 

### avotu 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. Sothat a county oommlsslonor vho vilfully exercisea his paver to employ FersOn8 to vork ur,onthe 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 bepunlshod under the provisions of Fecal Code, Artlale 196, for oorruptlg using hisauthorit or iFfluonce, but ruch punishmentdoes 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 “Nooffloer in this State shall be’removod from,office for any aot he ma9have Oommittodprior to hla election t0 OffiCe.” Article 5986irPII Wnded Act6 1939, 46th Leg., House Bill 493, Seotlon 1.

! A 

### oomals~lonor, then,’ canmt be

### removed fromhla Offloedurips the seoond term to which he ma9have been elected for an aot vhloh he has committed dwlng his first tomnin 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 

## orrurthor: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 moneyinvolved vab ln the hands of the ooumlssiomr inhis 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 SupremeCourt or Texas in the case or State vs. ‘Klcgsbury, 37 !&IX. 159: 'There isnovrltten lavof this Stato oxpreselydefiningthe act of the county co.Ut in wlavfully epiwovlng anaccount against the county as a penal 

## orrenao.” Yours very truly AWORm G~itSRALOFTEXAS

Riohard Ii. Fairchild

Assistant

I APPROVEDDEC 5, 1940

ATTORNEYGEXERALbFTZXAS