## THEATTOWM~Y GENEWAL
OFTEXAS

HonorableDean Martin County Attorney OpinionNo. C-544 Qrayson County Courthouse Re: Reconsideration of Attorney Sherman,Texas General'sOpinionNo. C-473 (July 28, 1965) concerning the constitutionality of House Bill 119, Acts 1965, 59th Legislature,

authorizing the appointmentof a juvenile officer and assistant juvenile Dear Mr. Martin: officer for Qrayson County.

At your request,we have reconsideredthe opinion written to you on July 28 1.965, and designatedas Attorney General'sOpinionNo. C-4+3. We have concludedthat such opinion should be withdrawnand the followingsubstituted therefor.You have requestedthe opinion of this office concerning the validity of House Bill No. 119 Chapter 198 Acts 1965 59th Legislature which authorizesthe Commlsslon~rs Cour& of Orayson Count; to appoint a juvenile officerand an assistant juvenile officer.

Sections 1 and 2 of House Bill No. 119 provideas follows: "Section1. The commissioners court of Grayson Countymay appoint a juvenileofficer and an assistant juvenileofficer. "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 transportationexpenses when he supplieshis own automobile. The commissloners court may pay the assistant
4 uvenlle officera sglary of not more than 400 per month and may allow him not more than 10 cents per mile for transportation expenses when he supplieshis own automobile."

**-2615-**Hon. Dean Martin, page 2

House Bill No. i

(C-544)

119 Is limited in Its applicationto 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 Constitutionof Texas which provides in part as follows:

"The Legislatureshall not, except as otherwiseprovided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law, authorizing:

. , . "Regulating

the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards or shcool districts; t,

. . . "Creatingoffices, or prescribingthe power? and duties of officers,In counties,

. . . Matters relating to the welfare of minors are of statewideconcern 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 JudicialDistrict a member thereofwas upheld against the contention that it was a local or special law regulatingthe affairs of counties. The commentsof the Court at page 88 of 213 S.W.2d are particularlyrelevant to the questionbefore 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 countlestwithin the meaning of art. III, Sec. 56 of our Constitution. "If the duties devolvingupon the District and County Judges by the terms of H.B. 257 are to be performedupon behalf of the State and not on behalf of the countiesas entitiesdistinct from the State, then H.B. 257 is not a local or special law regulatingthe affairs of counties even though its applicationis not state-wide but is restrictedto certain localities.

-2616-. .

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

Stephensenv. 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 populationof one~ hundred thousand or over the Judges of the severalDistrict and CriminalDistrict Courts of such county together with the County Judge, should constitutea juvenile board, and fixed the annual salary of each of the District and CriminalDistrict 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 promotingthe welfare of minors, a matter in which the State at large is Interested. "The State has the right to designateand make use of Districtand County Judges as agents of the State in discharge of a state duty and to compensatethem for the performanceof this work. Jones v. Alexander,supra. "There is probablyno more pressingdomestic problem confrontingthe Americanpeople today than that of copingwith juveniledelinquency. Our Legislature,has as indicatedby H.B. 257 and other laws, properly interesteditself 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 juvenileofficers are prescribedby Article 5142 of Vernon's Civil Statutes.

"Such officers shall have authorityand it shall be their duty to make investigations of all cases referred~tothem as such by such Board; to be present in court and to represent the interest of the juvenilewhen the case is heard, and to furnish to the courtand such Board any informationand assistanceas 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 requiredby 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 investigatlonof 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 informationand assistanceas the court may require and to take charge of any juvenile'before and after the trial as the court may direct.

. . ." Thos,e persons appointedpursuant to House Bill No. 119 would,be chargedwith these duties. Here, as in Lamon v. FP=2 the Legislaturehas addressedItself to a matter of s a ewi e concern in authorizingthe appointmentof persons to act in the interest of juvenilewelfare within Orayson County. Their duties are performed in furtheranceof~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 restrictedto a particularcounty does not make the Bill,a local or special law within the meaning of Section 56 of Article III of the Constitutionof 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'sOpinionNo. C-473 is hereby withdrawnand 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 regulatingthe affairs of countieswithin the meaning of Section 56 of Article III of the Constitutionof 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+