Corald C. Mann 

* 

A-u.NxY OmNrnPA.. 

Ronorablo A. lV. Lows=y 

Coun+q Attorney 

Naoogdoohes, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opfaioa Ho. C-624, 

R.8 Ecmis the salary of the oounty 

audltor,~appblntod andor.Artlolo 1646, 

R. C. 6.. fi&o6 or dotormlnodt 

Your roquostfor'an oplnioa oa.the abovs rtitod +&lon, tog&b&r 

with othor questions incidental thoroto, has beoa rooolmd by this offlw. 

It appoars that Haoogdoohos County does not havh oithsr th+posdribed'populatlon 07 asssssod tax valuationi required by Article 1646, R. 

C.8. to autborlca tha l ppolatzent of a oouufJr~auditorundor thatArtlo10, 

but a ‘oqfp suditor has boon appcdated for the oounCy under $he~provlslons 

d hrtloloo 1646 and 1647. The distrlot judge who-app&ntod the auditor 

fixed hio~salary at r,mlnimum of one hundred %wenty-f1~~'(#%26;CC) dbllari 

permanth; fully ocmpllod with all the ~ovlsionr of Ai% 1647;and th& 

+triot olerk'porformo&hir dufy'as pesaribod by iaid-Art%alo. Xau~or, 

tha 'Conmissloaors' Court refused toreoord in Iti mlnutii tho~6eitifiod 

Oopy of thti ndnuton roooited from tho distriot clerk;.land refused toeator 

an ardor dlrootiag'tho paymat of tho auditor'6 'ralrty,'is oonnaandod to do 

by tho same Artiolo, but to t&e ooatrarg onterod ~~ordsr iastruoting~th~ 

oomty alark to lsfuo no Wt to tho'audltor ln paymoittbf hlr monthly 

salary. 'In piow of thle eituatlon, you nant to know whether the audltoi-Is 

salary ir fixed bythe dlrtrlot judge or by the Wmnlssionerr' Court. O&or 

quotione subnltto6 will bo subsequently coneidorod and answered herolna 

The question &.a%¶ has been hsretoforo oonPIPld&ed by'thia drp&rt-' 

mont npoa at least four obo8slolls. Cn'July 24,'1921; Ron. 0015; C.'.Stiptikljs, 

tibor oftho House of Roprosontativos, nas adivsed thatOtheG.lary of Ouab 

a oouuty auditor was determined by the.provlsiona of et. 1646. On August 

17, 1956, Mr. R.C. Tompkins, County Auditor of Kaoogdoohbs,Caunty, -1 

advlsod that the Commissionera' Court of said aounty was the proper author-. 

lw to fix his salary, ti thrt the amount was for tho Court's dotermine 

tion. Thon, on D&amber 21, 1926, Hon. Roy R. Priest, DTstriot Attorney, 

Rankla, W&P advlsod to tho oamo effect. The last oxpnrsion bytho dopartmeat on the subjootwhioh we have been able to find 1s contained in a lattw 

dated December 22, 1938, addressed to Hon. Lox. B.Smith, District Judge, 

Groesbaok, wherein ho IP advisod that the salary of tho Ccwnw Auditor of 

Freestone County should bo fixed by tho Cona&ssion*rs' Court of said oounty, 

Tho bsis for that anolusion was&at the %xmuiosloners' Court lo an agent 
Hon. A. I% Lowery, page 2 (C-1326) 

of the county and controls the levies affooting rovaauas of a o~unty.~ 

Tho opinions rendered to Mr. Tompkins &d Hr. Priest state no reasons 

for the conclusions thorola reaohed. All of the above msntionod opinions. 

were written by Assistant Attorwys General, wore not oonforonoe opinions, 

cad were not approvod by an Attornv Goaoral. The firat opinionwas writtan during the administration of Hon. Jas. V. Allrod, tho others during the 

time that Hon. W. HcCraw was Attorauy General. L%IO of th.so opinions holds 

that the salary & the am&y Auditor of your oounw nmst be fixed Iy the 

Commlsslonsro~ Court of said oow at au& an Mount 46 it might determine, 

while the opinion first 4bova roforrod to speolfioally holds that tho salary of an auditor appointed under tbo authority of Article 1646 mst %a 

governed and dotermined by'the measuring mothod 8of up in Art1010 1645. Both 

opiaionr oannot be oorreot. 

Let us examine those staktbs along lrfffi Art. 1647,&d 8.0 if wo 

o8nnotarrivo at a acrreot an8wor to tho questlon lnvolmd. 

The pertimnt prts of Artloles 1645 and 1646 road, roepeotively, as 

follows: 

*In m count;v having a population of thirty-flea thousand inhabitants, oc 

over, aooordingto tha prooodingFodoralomsus, or havlngatuvalQati&n 

of flftooa mlllloa~dollus or over, l o,oordlng to thr last approad tax rolls, 

tharo shall be Mennlally.appolnted an audltor'of aooounts &id finaxioos, 

the title of said offleer to b oounty auditor, Who &all hold his offiae 

for trro yoam, and who shall reoeiw as amponration for-hi8 smvSoer 6nS 

huu6redd'and twenty-flvo dollars for eaoh million dollars, or major portion 

tharoof, of thoaosossod v8lurtion, %o armual 8414ry to k ooniprfid f&an 

tb last approved t@x rolls, sald~annual Palw'fra oount$ tide‘shall not 

oxooed thlrwslx hundred dollars, to be paid monthly out of'thti &tiqral 

fundn of tha oounti upon an order of&a oommia8lmers~ court. . . .t 

"Woatho cc%maisnionors' oourt of a oounty, not mentioned ad daumoritti iip 

thr preooding art.3010 shall detirmino that an iudltar Is k publlO~~ooidSlfy 

lntha diaptoh of the oounti tisinaos and shrll into*'ah drdor.:ti@ti ~ti 

ndnutes'of said oourt fully setting out thereasoak hid~aeaesaity of’rPr‘ 

auditor; .rad shall~oauso iaid'S+drr to ~'ooirtffl'id to thi drstii&tSjizdgo# 

hating juriodiotloa Ln the boimw; 'rid judgbS‘Sh&ll, Wsuoh~r'Mkori%K 

ooasldend good aad sinffiolont, appoint i cknty aidltdr, ie prtidti lai 

the suocoeding artiol~, who shall quall~~and perf&ti~all~tho'dutibr .' 

ioqulred of county auditors by the laws of fhir 2tat-e; provided mid judw 

shall havu the power to dlscoatlano the offloe of suoh county auditor at 

any W after tho expiration of cuxo yoar wlmn it is oloarly shown that suoh 

auditor ir not a publio neoessity and his services aro not oommonaurato nith 

hls salaryrooolvod. . . l " 

Article 1647 reads as follows: 

Yho distriot judgoa hati% jurisdiotioa In the oounty shall appoint the 

oounty l udltor at a speolrlmooting hold for that purpose, a majority ruling: 
Hon. A. W. Lowory, page 3 (O-826) 

provided, that if a majority of such judgos shall fail to agree upon i&e 

solootion of some psrson as 4udltor, then either of said judgos shall oartidy suah fast totho Goarnor, who shall thereupon 4ppolnt soma other 

district judge to sot and vota with tho aforesaid ju+os in tho sole&ion 

of suoh auditor. The a&ion shall thea be rooorded in the minutes of the 

district oourt of the oounty 4nd tie 0101% thereof shall ootify the eeme 

to the colmnis6lonero'oourt, which shall oauee tho sane to be recorded in 

its miautes togothor with an order directing the paymoat of the auditor's 

salary. . . ." 

Tha offioe of the ooun@ auditor was created in 1905 by Chrp; 161, 

Reg. See. 29th Legisl4turac 800. 1 of that Aat, as mendad in 1907, wns 

oarriod into tho Rovisod Statutes of1911ar Art.l46O,whichArtiolow&s 

wndod la 1915. The original Act and all amendmontr up to and LnoludSng 

gho ~an&neat of 1916 were based oa olther the population of the wunty or 

acane olty located therain.' Tho salary of the auditor In tho orlgltil Aot, 

& all am&ndm~to thereto; was fixed 4t #2400&Q, no more, no 108a. In 

1917, Chap. 184, Reg. SOS., l&o 35th Legislature POr thi first time provided fortho appalnbnont of 4 counw auditor based on~population or tax. 

valuations. Tho valuation was fixed at fifteen mllllon dollars,'or over, 

tho oame as am provided for in Art. 1645. Ia the smno Act; Art. 1460a, 

now&t. 1646,~was oreatod and ArCl460, after Ming omqnded In 1925 to 

inomaso tho suxbm salary, la now, exoludlng later "braokot" amendmenta, 

t. 1646. 

2 

It mry hero be lioted that the dot of 1917 limited tha aalarJt ' 

o a county auditor to #100X@ for 4421 mlllfon, o? major portion thereof, 

of fax valurtion, not to l ~oeod #2400&O per 4mmh 

Art. 146Oa (Art. 1646) did not oreah the office of county auditor 

l& only pmded that those oount&oa who were not l llgible to have 8 

ooun* auditor beoauso of lack of the nea*ssary popilatlon, or the requlrad 

taxable valuation, might have the benefit of tha sarvioos of a aauntg 

auditor if 453 whwa the Conaaiasionere~ Court ~etfermined a publio neawri* 

existed for s-, and provided tho'proo&xre f& the'appolntm&t of an 

auditor by the P- appointingagona$ (o1d.k-t. 1461, now&t. 1467) empowwed to appoint an auditor under Art. 1460. 

Art, 146Oa was no'&+ moro nor loss than an exoqtion to th* genoral qualificatlonr prescribe for counties to be eligible to have 4 oceanty auditor by Art. 1460. Thin exooptloa could have with propri*CJr been 

added to said Article as a proviso, for In truth and In faot, that is 

what it is, and nothing moroe Sec. 1 of the Act of 1917 amends Art. 1460: 

600. 2 adds Art. 1460a, and Sec. 3 amends Art. 1461 by providing the 

additional proooduro, perhaps made neobssary by Art. 1460s. 

If Sec. 2 adding Art. 146Oa, had been written a.0 4 pruvbo to 600. 

1 of the Act of 1917, amending Art. 1460, the question now under considoration would never have arisen because it would have bean apparent that the 

salary of a county auditor appointed in a aounty ambraaed withintb proviso 

would be measured by the same yardstick that salaries of county auditors 
Hon. A.& hwory, page 4 (C-626) 

nho am within the g*naral prwi~10n~ of Art. 1460, of which It would 

haw boon a part, were measured, which was "one hundrod dollars for saoh 

mlllloa dollars, or major portion theroof, of the assossod valuation." 

It is apparent thatmovured by thin yardstiok, ao county auditor's 

salary would ever amount to the smxbum salary of $2400.00, to which thor* 

auditors of countios having more the.n $lS,OCO,OCXMO taxablr valuation wore 

limited. 

It is tho wrifer's opinionthat the Etatut. 4x-4 so plaia and'unambiguous that there is a0 oaoasion to resort to rulos of aonstruation, tit 

If nrah rosart muot be had, thea w* must rmaombsr that a otatut* must be 

oon*truod to make It eff*otiw, that is, enforooalilo and operatiw, If It 

Is fairly susooptiblo of such lnterpretation~ eaoh prt must b ocmslderod 

In ocanoctionwith every other part, in order to produco a harmonious whol* 

u&to roaoh lh* true l*g%slativa Intoi&, the real parposo of oomstruotion. 

A statute must be given a aonstruofioa thatavoids misohitius conioquono- 

*si or m&a f;t imposslblo-of l nforoawnt, or to dofoat or'aullify, or that~ 

will render0 it fruitlars, futile, purposelo** or uaol**s. Itnustba pr& 

*umod that th* ~glslatwU did not intend to do ~a fooliSh or usolohs thing. 

Nhat.dll bo the oonsoquono*s should w* attempt to oon*tru* the 

rtatute as authorlsing Colmetsoionorr 1 Courts to fix tho~saluy of ooun~ 

auditors appointed undor Art.'16461 ~Sathe first plaoo, wo uy oonfronf*d 

rrith the established polloy of the 8tata fired w ropeato6 leglslatdw l ots 

fixing th* *alarios of oouu~,audltors gonorally. The bgi*lrturti tidontly 

thought,itwould be unwis* to‘permlt a pmaissloners~ Court ti firtho'atilarj? of ax'offloer irlroso duty It was to chock their official aotP and to koop 

them in duo bounds. The duti*s imposodbg 6tatutauponooun~ l uditorii 

patently affsota a ccmPni*slon*r*~ omrt in many ways,'ln thr l xaralso of It* 

authority 0-r counti affUra. The Legixlatur* wU fiilly.Garo of th*'*v$l~ 

to be ranodlod &*a. It oroatod th* offioo of oounty auditor. That body knew 

that a bounty auditor should not b influ*ao*d by ouch oourto~or'tho mombors 

thereof, wh*n It provided for ME appointment by dlstriot judges, +nd mad* 

MS salary oortuin, or fixed a yardstick whorebylt oould be made oertain 

without the int*rvontion of tho court* The bgislaturo aid not Mt to put 

a oounty auditor la a position wh*ro h* could b intimidated or influenoed 

lythe oourt, by peaittlng the oourt to rair* or lowor his salary at will, 

or dlrohargo him. 

Ik ar* n*xt aonfroatod with thin fundamental proposition of law, towit: _ _,. ,.. ~. ,~ 

?m tie absence of *xpre*s Constltutlonal pr~sion, the camp*naation of 

offio*ra must b+ fixed by the bgislature or by sane governing body whiah 

han ken expressly authorized to do so." Wharton Co. v. Ahldag, 84 Tax. 12, 

19 S.Vf. 291; State V. &ore, 57 Tax. 307; First Baptist Churah v. City of 

PoCt Worth (Corn. App.) 26 8.X (2d) 198; 34 Texx. Jur. 506, 607. 
_ . r 

Hon. A. 5% Lomry, page 5 (O-626) 

Ths affias of the county auditor is a creature of the Logirlature, 

hence there is no constitutional prw~sion f3xing the salaries of such 

offioers.' Tharofore,wo must look to the statuta to SOS how suoh salarfes 

are fixed, and if not flxed ly statute, we must th&n look for l rtatute 

8xpnrsly authorizing sme governing bdy to do 80. Ii thorn bno such 

statuk, it neoesnuily follanrs that no salary oan km paid to 8uch county 

offioers. See authorities cited above. .Inthat bvonti, we noald oomict 

the tigislaturo of having done a futile, useleas, ineffective, unenforoeable an4 fruitless thing -- enacted an impotent statuto. 

We haw been unable to find any ttatute enpOwering a oolnnclssioners~ 

court, a district Judge, or any governing body to fixthe salary of a aouuty 

,rtiitor, whether he %S appointed under Art.'1646 or Art. 1646. Thorn are no 

su&'rt&utos for the very Simple reama tit tharo i8 no neaersity for 

88x10. The bgislature has fixed the Salary of oounw auditor8 bytho plain 

provi8ionS (d Jrrt. 164s. In that Ai%cle i8 found a'yardstiak by whioh every 

county auditor'8 nalazy may be dafinitsly delmmined, aoopt tho8o tioioim 

8Cb.KtO8 Ue fiXad bg~INlWZ'OUS braOk& 8ZIOn&llSnt8 thSret0, and by OthSr trackit statutes withwhioh we are not here conaernod, %8oau8s tliay do not apply 

to I!hoogdoohes County. 

In this cozmootion, w8 call your attSntion'totho fact that in saoh 

and awry bracket amndmbatadded to tiiO18 1646, an4 in ArtioloS 164% to 

Artiolo 1645g, inolusiw, Vernon's Annotato4 Statutes, a oalarg is spmifiaally fixed for th0 oOUU~J~ aUditOr Of the OOUnig or OOunfiO8 ttiwhioh8tid 

truoket 8nm&t1emta apply. 

YOU haV0 adti8.4 US that th. aSSS86.4 PrlUatiOn Of bobgdOdm8 COunty, 

as 8hm by tbo last approved aS808SWnt roll8 Of pai4 county, i8 l pproximat.4 twelve million dollars. It is a simple mattar of oompuation to detirm&n8 that the oounty auditar's 8alary is PiPteen hundred dollars per amum. 

The other quSstion8 8ubnlttod am 4opSn4ont upontho anm8r to your 

main qU88tiCQ3, which 1, haYS just m8wemod, tim C‘=&.8SiOX,Sr8' C0Ul-t should 

ocmp4 wlith the plain mandatOXy prOviSiOn Of &% 1647,,reOOI'd 50 it8 Ininutes the oertifiod copy of the minutes of the dintriot court appointing fhS 

auditor, an4 sntsr a~or4er 4irSoting the payment of the auditor's salary 

rah month aS it aoorueS* 

The law prasumee all publio offloam will pmfona their offioial duties. Therefore, wa nwt proman that the Ccmmisaioners~ Court of your 

oountJr will perform its duty in this in8tanoe. In faot, that bo4y ha8 no 

disoretion or other alternativS than to follow ae plain mandatory provisions of tit5018 1647. For thiS mason, wo 40 not adPi whather the 

county olark should prow84 to i8suS to th8 county auditor his salary 

oheck each month as his salary amruSs until the ComissionsrS1 Court pSrform8 it8 perfunotorg duty of recording in its minute8 the oortifiad copy 

of the ndzwta8 of thS distr ot court and entar an order dirmting tb 
Hon. A. V. Lowmy, pago 6 (C-826) 

payment oftha countu auditor's salary, bscau86 w6 feel that this will bs 

done 8s soon as th8 oourt h8s bean offioially advised what its duty 18 in 

th8 prmiseo. 

The foregoing r-marks ambased upon the prssumption that the person 

appointed to tie office of county auditor ha6 takarr b&h the constitutional 

and the special oath of off108 required of him by Art. 1649, 6x14 has filed 

with the Comniosicnsrs* Court th8 bond provid6d for in said Article. m 

this oonnection,wse ar6 further advised that the auditozyreoemtly appointed 

su008848 himsslf in offio8. If he has not t6kon the oaths,~8xooukd 8nd 

filed the bond, ho may yet do so, for u&d8r Sm. 17, Art. 16 of our Constitution, he is mquirod to perform th8 duti88 of hi8 offioe until ha qualifi88. Purthannore, the provision found in Art. 1648, requiringth8 bond to b8 

filed within trSnty 46~8 lftor hi8 l ppointmnt ha8 be611 oonotnmd a6 dir&- 

tory in simil6r St6tWt86. McFarlum ot al ta. Eow811, County Judge, (WV. 

App.) 43 S.W. 315, error rofU6o4. In 8ithsr svent, the auditor is mititled 

to hi8 comp6nsation 80 longao he 88rv86 the oounty in that 06pacity. 

The opinion8 her8tofore writton by assistmts 6nd hmiiaabom r8f8r 

re4 to, whsmin viano oontrary to this opLnion ar8 8xpns66d, ar8 her6w 

speoifio8lly W.rrulrd. 

Trwting that the foregoing snawu8 your Inquiq, w.8 are 

V.lytrulyyour6 

ATTORM3Y GERERAL OF TEiAS 

By /s/ Bruoo W. Exy8nt 1. 

Bruoe 3?. Biy8nt 

As8istult 

mMrcegw 

AFPRWSD: 

/8/Garald C. tin 

ATTowlBp GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Apprw8d 

opinion Conmitt 

byGRL 

Chairman