## Honorable

P.J. X088 County **Auditor** Yontaguur, Temm DCMU sir1

fn your lottor 

## or you request our 

## 0tm oruontagua the f’undrof person **employed** ution by the oounty would be mada 1 ram whiah **garmentr** ributlon to **poor** 

## epe0lriOally 80 asmua.eda8 a taot that the mwlng roonm generally es am to beoome publio **terminated. Also,**  that **given are**  **unable to**  

## eraitie8 or me. our sslonerr~ Court to that 

## err00t.

8,oi Artio’le18 or that dooument **read88** *aso. 6. Baoh oounty in the Stat. may provldm in crush

manner **aa** may bo promorlbed by law, a Unnuai Labor **poor noun**  **aad mrm,**  **rm taking**  **oar0** or, **numaging,** ample irg snb supplying tbawant6 of its lntllgent and **poor nhabltants.w**  **I**Eonorable y. J. Moss, Fagagr2

section t or Arti0h 11 th0re0r ~~-0~id881

"sea. t, The osnrrtruotion of ialla, courthou8er and brfd@8 and the establfsbment of oounty poor house8 and mm8, and the lay& out oonstruotlon and repairing of county roads ahallbe provjded for **by** general laws,*
In Seydler V. Border, 118 8, ;V,(26) 702, error refused, the oon8tltutionallty or the 8tltut80 ‘authotizil@ the oon8tnaotion of oounty hoapltals was suetalnod, The oare and treatmnt or the slak wa8 thsre held to be 8 pub110 purpoeo a8 dlrtinyiehad from a private ore end a proper subjeot tar the expenditure or oounty funds. Ba4, on June S!b* 1940, id the case of The i!ouaing Authority of the C$ty of Uallar T, Elcginbotham, et al., not yet reported, in: an opinion by Jud&e Slatton, Coamisaloner, the 3upreme Courtheld oonetltutional the Texar Eousirg kuthoritiee Law, hrtlolo 1269k, Vernon'8 Ciril Statutes. It was there determined that the provision of decent dwblllr,gs aixlother living aooomodatione ior persons of low lnoom is a public purpose sod that pub110 funds my be used to ~aoqulrebulldig sites and ereot thereon dwelling aocomodatlons to be rented at low rates to poor people.

&ginning at pqg 851 of the ,?eporteof Attorney General Looney, 1916-1918, wo find an oplnlonwritten by tha late Chlsf Snetlos C. Ii!. Cureton, then PlratAssistant Attorney General, sustaining the oonstltutlonality of ii,3. ITo,18, Ch. 4, p. 4, :;ots35th Leg., 4th C. S., authori,zlnqthe oountier to expend their general funds for thepurohaeeof plantlag seed which would then be sold on cxtdlt to rseidqcts or such oountlea who were poor and unable to prooure sueh seed. It war Judge Curstonfe opinion that thapurpose of uuah expenditure was a publlo one.

T&e purpose ror whloh your Comi.sslont?re~ Court propo8e8 to use these fund8 ir unquestionably a pub110 one within Artiole 8, Yeotion 3, of our Constitution. Howarer , thi8 does not neoedsarllynsan that the expenditure aan bo laaA6. For, it ha8 been hrld by ov oourt8my times that Comdmloners* Courts are of llnlted jurlsdlotlon only an& am without any **ponrr** eroept thosr cOni8rredupon them expressly or by naoessary tiplioationr El Paso County f. Elam, 106 3. w. (ad) 393; Howard T. Eendorson County, 116 s, ‘Is. [ad) 479t Hill County v. Styant, 864 9. XI 5801 Contra. court 0r mdlson County v. ::allaoe, 15 S. W.(26) 535. We shall attempt to deternine whether the Conmisslonerrr* Court ha8 the neoeeaary authority to direat this eXp+ndltuI'e.f-

. 

### ,, - ~,_ ~, .~~. ..-.

.~353

Xouorable F. J. Yore, Page 5

In Our opinion the raOt8 abore stated and ati8WUBdto be truewould support a flndlng of the Conmlssloners~Court that the employees in the sswim3 room, as well aa those reoelring the artfo~er of olothlag, are 80 needy and dependent as to oome within the authority prorlded in section 11.of Artlole 23S1, ~8'Yi88d

**CiVil %iltUt@S.**  COn8ib8ring the hwitarlan pur;pose OS this statute, we do not believe it should be given a SereM~Md lIteraL oon8truotlon. Rathsr, lt Should **be** &ven **at** least a f&lrly llbanl oon8truotlon to the end that its wholly desirable purposes ehall at batit be po8slbla or aohl8rem8nt. The,oounty*ti general fund has ft.8sareguardr. Seation 9, ArtlcLe 8, or the; Con8tltutlon, limits the ad rtiorem tax for &W3ral oountypurpOee8 to twentyfire oents on the hundred dollars valuatfon, and it mag also be
!rsnuaed that the county oommI8slonerswill **be** fIxgal and **careful** n making euoh e~ndltures. We do not believe that the statute was meant to requlra a man tobe reduoed topauperism In the starkestneanlni;OZ the word before aaefstacoemy be ertsndad to him. These proJeot8 known as Vi.P. A. sewing roOm aotually dispense aid in two torm8: (I)Ulreot aid to thosewho reoelTe the garzents, and (2) Indirect aid In theway or employment for the vmmefioperatic the tnacbinrr, Article 2351 does not rspuire the arslstanoe to be given in any Partloularmanner. In many instanoer itwill be moh mre who 88~8 and dewlrabt8 for it to be glvbn in the nature or employment.

!&rthermore, wo do not believe that a oo&ty*a abllgatlon to extend ala is naoeaearily destroyed the momect the **Federal** Governmnt gfYe8 its aesistanoe. rhere IS nothIn% t0 prevent the oounty from providing ror a part of suoh supcart, the Federal Government aleo oontrlbutlng. Xi the Comrnleaionars~ Court find8 that those to whom the clothesare given are deptindent upon public relief, elth8r direct or lndlreot, ror llvln& &eoeseltles, or that the sewing room employees would probably beooue aubjetota of dlreot teller II the proJeots should **br** terminated, in our opinion the oontributionrec,usated of the Oountymay be zad8. our oplnlon, or aoume, would be to the Wntrary if tho i%XtImf88fOMr8 ***** **Court fin&S**  that suoh facts aro not true.

### 354

RonorableP. J.Moss, Page 4

This opinionis in aoaordwith ourconferenceopinion 

### No. 3099,whfohwe believetobe oorreot. Our opinion 

### No. O-2333was gireoupon 

### an inaompfetsatatenentandunderstanding of the faots and iswithdrawn,and llkewlsethatpartof opinion 

### No. O-1972,holdingthatoomisoioners~ courtsmay notpurohaee or rent sewingmahines for use in 

### suohii. 

### F.A. sewlag roomd.


### Youravery thlly ,,

APPROVErJUL 3, 1940

ATTORNEYGEKERALOFTEXAS

i-~, ~