WE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

April 8, 1953 

Hon. Ottis E. Lock, Chairman 

Senate Finance Committee 

53rd Legislature 

Austin, Texas Opinion No. S-26 

'Re: Constitutionality of 

Dear Sir: rehouse Bill 561. 

You have requested an opinion of the'constitutionallty of House Bill 561 of the 53rd Legislature 

creating the office of District Attorne 

t 

for the Crimlnal District Court of Harris Co,unty, a olishing the 

office of Criminal District Attorney of Harris County 

and transferring all civil matters to the County Attorney 

of Harris County. 

Ho,use Bill 561 and its companion, Ho,use Bill 

562, create the office of District Attorney'for the Criminal District Co~urt of Harris Co~unty, abolish the,office 

of Criminal District Attorney of Harris County, create 

the office of.County Attorney for Harris Co,unty and prescribe the d,uties of each office. 

T-t, I& nnw well settled that the Legislature is 

vested with the power to create the office of District 

Attorney and County Attorney, and prescribe their respective duties pursuant to the~provisions of Section 21 of 

Article V of the Constftution of Texas. Reed v. Triplett, 

232 S.W.2d 169 (Tex,Civ.App. 1950, error ref.); Neal v* 

Sheppard, 209 S.W,2d 388, (Tex.Civ.App. 1948, error ref.); 

Jones v.~Anderson, 189 S.W.2d~ 65 (Tex.Civ.App. 1945,error 

ref.). 

It is stated in Reed v. Triplett: 

"The 51st Legislature was undoubtedly 

vested with power, had it deemed such action 
. _ 

Hon. Ottis E. Lock, page 2 (S-26) 

necessary, to have created the office of 

criminal district attorney In the 66th 

Judicial District composed of Hill County 

and to have abolished the office of county 

attorney in that county. Jones v. Anderson, 

Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 65, er.ref.j Neal 

v. Sheppard, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W.2d 388, 

er.ref. But the Legislature did not attempt 

to exercise any such power by the enactment 

of Art. 322~ of Vernon's Tex.Civ.Stats, It 

merely created the office of district attorney in the 66th Judicial District of Hill 

County without abolishing or attempting to 

abolish the office of county attorney in 

that county. We see no Constitutional inhibition against the exercise of such power, 

even though the judicial district within 

which the office of district attorney was 

created consists only of Hill County . . 0' 

You are therefore advis,ed that House Bill 561 

and House Bill 562 are constitutional. We deem it 

advisable to point out, however, that Section 21 of 

Article V of the Constitution provides that "A county 

attorney, for counties in which there is not a resident 

criminal district attorney, shall be elected by the 

qualified voters of each county, who shall be commissioned 

by the Governor, and hold his office for the term of two 

years." In view of this provision, House Bill 561 abollshing the office of Criminal District Attorney of Harris~ 

County and creating the'offic~e of DlBtrUztAttomey fork 

the Criminal District Court of Harris County should be 

enacted prior to House Bill 562 creating the office of 

County Attorney. 

SUMMARY 

House Bill 561 and House Bill 562 abolishing the office of Criminal District Attorney of Harris County, creating,the office 

of District Attorney for the Criminal District 
Hon. Ottis E. Lock, page 3 (S-26) 

Court of Harris County, and creating the 

office of County Attorney for Harris 

County are constitutional. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

JOHN BEN SREPPERD 

Attorney General 

C. K. Richards 

Reviewer 

Robert S. Trotti 

First Assistant 

By&e* 

Assistant 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

JR:am