THEATTOWM~Y GENEWAL 

OFTEXAS 

Honorable Dean Martin 

County Attorney 

Opinion No. C-544 

Qrayson County Courthouse Re: Reconsideration of Attorney 

Sherman, Texas General's Opinion No. C-473 

(July 28, 1965) concerning 

the constitutionality of 

House Bill 119, Acts 1965, 

59th Legislature, authorizing 

the appointment of a juvenile 

officer and assistant juvenile 

Dear Mr. Martin: officer for Qrayson County. 

At your request, we have reconsidered the opinion 

written to you on July 28 1.965, and designated as Attorney 

General's Opinion No. C-4+3. We have concluded that such 

opinion should be withdrawn and the following substituted 

therefor. 

You have requested the opinion of this office concerning the validity of House Bill No. 119 Chapter 198 Acts 

1965 59th Legislature which authorizes the Commlsslon~rs 

Cour& of Orayson Count; to appoint a juvenile officer and an 

assistant juvenile officer. 

Sections 1 and 2 of House Bill No. 119 provide as 

follows: 

"Section 1. The commissioners court of 

Grayson County may appoint a juvenile officer 

and an assistant juvenile officer. 

"Sec. 2. The commissioners court may 

pay the duvenile officer a salary of not more 

than $500 per month and may allow him not more 

than 10 cents per mile for transportation expenses when he supplies his own automobile. 

The commissloners court may pay the assistant 

4 

uvenlle officer a sglary of not more than 

400 per month and may allow him not more than 

10 cents per mile for transportation expenses 

when he supplies his own automobile." 

-2615- 
Hon. Dean Martin, page 2 

House Bill No. 

i 

(C-544) 

119 Is limited in Its application to 

only one county. Therefore, we shall direct our attention to 

the question of whether it Is constitutional under the provisions 

of Section 56 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas which 

provides in part as follows: 

"The Legislature shall not, except as 

otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass 

any local or special law, authorizing: 

. , . 

"Regulating the affairs of counties, cities, 

towns, wards or shcool districts; 

t, 

. . . 

"Creating offices, or prescribing the 

power? and duties of officers, In counties, 

. . . 

Matters relating to the welfare of minors are of 

statewide concern rather than of a local or county nature. 

Jones v. Alexander, 122 Tex. 328, 59 S.W.2d 1080 (1933); Lamon 

v. Ferguson, 213 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.Civ.App. 1948, no history-r 

In Lamon v. Berguson, a statute creating the Juvenile 

Board of Burnet County and making the District Judge of the 33rd 

Judicial District a member thereof was upheld against the contention that it was a local or special law regulating the affairs 

of counties. The comments of the Court at page 88 of 213 S.W.2d 

are particularly relevant to the question before us. 

"The only remaining question, presented 

by appellant, Is whether or not H.B. 257 is 

a local or special law 'regulating the affairs 

of countlest within the meaning of art. III, 

Sec. 56 of our Constitution. 

"If the duties devolving upon the District 

and County Judges by the terms of H.B. 257 are 

to be performed upon behalf of the State and not 

on behalf of the counties as entities distinct 

from the State, then H.B. 257 is not a local or 

special law regulating the affairs of counties 

even though its application is not state-wide 

but is restricted to certain localities. 

-2616- 
. . 

Hon. Dean Martin, page 3 (C-544) 

Stephensen v. Wood, 119 Tex. 564, 34 S.W.2d 

246; Harris County v. Crooker, Tex.Civ.App. 

224 S.W. 792, affirmed 112 Tex. 450 248 S.W. 

g,; . Lytle v. Ralff, 75 Tex. 128, 15 S.W. 

"'The welfare of minors has always been 

a matter of deep concern to the, state.! Jones 

v. Alexander, 122 Tex. 328, 59 S.W.2d 1080, 

1081. 

"In that case the court held constitutional 

art. 5139, R.C.S. 1925, Acts 1917, p. 27, Acts 

1921, p. 273 which provided that in any county 

having a population of one~ hundred thousand or 

over the Judges of the several District and 

Criminal District Courts of such county together 

with the County Judge, should constitute a juvenile board, and fixed the annual salary of each 

of the District and Criminal District Judges, as 

members of such board, at $1,500., H.B. 257 Is 

an amendment of art. 5139. 

"The purpose of H.B. 257 Is the same as 

the purpose of art. 5139. Both laws provide 

means for promoting the welfare of minors, a 

matter in which the State at large is Interested. 

"The State has the right to designate and 

make use of District and County Judges as agents 

of the State in discharge of a state duty and to 

compensate them for the performance of this work. 

Jones v. Alexander, supra. 

"There is probably no more pressing domestic 

problem confronting the American people today 

than that of coping with juvenile delinquency. 

Our Legislature, has as indicated by H.B. 257 

and other laws, properly interested itself in 

the solution of this problem, and the courts 

should not, in the absence of some'compelllng 

specific consti~tutional provision, undo,its 

efforts." 

-261?- 
Hon. Dean Martin, page 4 (C-544) 

The qualifications and duties of juvenile officers 

are prescribed by Article 5142 of Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

"Such officers shall have authority and 

it shall be their duty to make investigations 

of all cases referred~to them as such by such 

Board; to be present in court and to represent 

the interest of the juvenile when the case is 

heard, and to furnish to the courtand such 

Board any information and assistance as such 

Board may require, and to take charge of any 

child before and after the trial and to perform such other services for the child as may 

be required by the court or said Board, and 

such juvenile~officers shall be vested with 

all the power and authority of police officers 

or sheriffs incident to their offices. 

"The clerk of the court shall when practicable, 

notify such juvenile officer when any juvenile 

is to be brought before the court. It shall be 

the duty of such juvenile officer to make investigatlon of any such case, to be present in 

court to represent the interest of the juvenile 

when the case is tried, to furnish to such court 

such information and assistance as the court may 

require and to take charge of any juvenile'before 

and after the trial as the court may direct. . . ." 

Thos,e persons appointed pursuant to House Bill No. 

119 would,be charged with these duties. Here, as in Lamon v. 

FP=2 

the Legislature has addressed Itself to a matter of 

s a ewi e concern in authorizing the appointment of persons to 

act in the interest of juvenile welfare within Orayson County. 

Their duties are performed in furtherance of~the vital interests 

of the state as ,a whole and the mere fact that the operation 

of House Bill No. 119 or the duties of the persons authorized 

to be appointed therein is restricted to a particular county 

does not make the Bill,a local or special law within the meaning of Section 56 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas. 

Sullins v. City of Roma, 336 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App. 1959, 

no history); see Travis County v. Matthews, 235 S.W.2d 691 

(Tex.Clv.App. 1951, error ref. n.r.e.). 
. - 

, 

Hon. Dean Martin, page 5 (C-544) 

You are hereby advised that in our opinion House 

Bill No. 119, Acts 1965, 59th Legislature, page 409 is constitutional. 

SUMMARY 

Attorney General's Opinion No. C-473 is 

hereby withdrawn and this opinion substituted 

In lieu thereof. 

House Bill No. 119 Acts 1965, 59th 

Legislature, Chapter 196, page 409, is constitutional, as it is not a local or special law 

regulating the affairs of counties within the 

meaning of Section 56 of Article III of the 

Constitution of Texas. 

Very truly yours, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General 

WOS:mkh:ml 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Scott Qarrlson 

J. C. Davis 

Kerns Taylor 

Gordon Cass 

APPROVRD FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: T. B. Wright 

-261+