October 18, 195’1 

Hon. John R. Creighton 

County Attorney 

Opinion No. V-1325 

Palo Pinto county Re: Applicability of S.B. 362, 

Palo Pinto, Texas Acts 52nd Leg., R~.S. 1951, 

ch. 264, p. 424. to Palo 

Dear Sir: Pinto County. 

You have requested an opinion as to whether the CommissionersD Court of Palo Pinto County may elect to compensate 

constables and deputies under the provisions of Senate Bill 362, 

Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951, ch. 264, p. 424. 

Section 1 of Senate Bill 362 authorizes county commissioners’ courts to supply or pay for transportation of constables 

and deputy constables under one of several optional plans outlined in the statute. Subdivision (e) of Section 1 reads: 

“This Act shall not apply to counties having a 

population of less than twenty thousand (20,000) 

people :” 

Your letter requesting an opinion contains the following 

statement: 

“According to the preliminary report of the 1950 

census, Palo Pinto County has a population of slightly 

over 18,000 people. Estimates of reliable civic organizations, Chambers of Commerce, etc., place the present population at well over 20,000 people.“. 

You point out in your letter that Senate Bill 362 does not state the 

method by which population is to be determined, such as “according to the last Federal census.” 

Chapter 1 of Title 61 (Article,s 3882 et seq,), R.C~.S. 1925, 

provides for the compensation and ‘expenses of district. county, 

and precinct officers. Article 3889, which is a’ part of this chapter, reads: 

“The preceding Federal census shall govern as 

to population in all cases under any provision of this 

chapter.” 
Hon. John R. Creighton. page 2 (V-1325) 

While the Legislature has not expressly made Senate Bill 

362 a part of Chapter 1 of Title 61, this statute deals with compensation and expenses of precinct officers, and we think it was the intention of the Legislature that it be construed in conjunction with 

the articles of this chapter. 

We note that Senate Bill 362 has been unofficially codified 

as part of Title 120 of the Revised Civil Statutes, r.elating to Sheriffs 

and Constables. However, an unofficial codification has no effect on 

the operation of an act of the Legislature and may be disregar~ded. 

,Att’y Gen. Letter Op., July 15. 1949, addressed to Hon. Jesse G. Foster. 

In former years the Legislature used various standards for 

determining population classifications for compensating county and 

precinct officers. Sometimes the vote in the last preceding pr~esidential or other election was used. See, for example, Acts 25th Leg., 

S.S. 1897, ch. 5. p. 5, sets. 7, 10. and 17. However, these standards, 

which were dependent on many contingent factors and were therefore 

not satisfactory, gave way to the, use of the preceding Federal census as the customary standard., In 1913, the Legislature amended 

Article 3887. R.C.S. 1911, so as to provide that “the last United States 

Census shall govern as to population in all cases” in determining the 

compensation of these officers. Since that time, this standard has 

prevailed almost exclusively. Occasionally the Legislature has varied this pattern in exceptional cases. but in those: instance,s it has 

specified the standard or method by which population is to be ascertained. See, for example, Article 326h. V.C.S. 

Senate Bill 362 does not grant authority to any person or 

body to determine the population of a county, nor does it set out the 

sources from which information as to population is to be obtained. 

In view of legislative practice. considered along with~Article 3889, 

supra, we think the failur,e of the Legislature to state the method by 

EliIEh population is to be determined is more indicative oft an intention that the preceding Federal census is to control~than that some 

other method is to be used. In Brooke v. Dulaney, 100 Tex. 86, 93 

S. N. 997 (1906). the Supreme Court of Texas held that since the Constitution had provided that population for certain purposes should be 

determined by the preceding Federal census, it contemplated that 

population for a similar purpose under another section of the Constitution should be determined by the same method, although it did 

not expressly so state. The same reasoning is appropriate here. 

We are of the opinion; therefore, that the preceding Federal census 

is to be used in determining the applicability of the provisions of 

Senate Bill 362. 
Hon. John R. Creighton, page 3 (V-1325) 

According to the final report of the 1950 Federal census, 

the population of ~Palo Pinto County is 17,154. This census is the 

correct measure of population to determine the applicability of 

Senate Bill 362 to your county. Att’y Gen. Op. V-1175 (1951). Since 

Palo Pinto County has a population of less than twenty thousand 

people, Senate Bill 362 does not apply to it. 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioners’ Court of Palo Pinto County 

may not elect to compensate constables and their 

deputies under Senate Bill 362, Acts 52nd Leg;. R.S. 

1951. ch. 2, p. 424, since this county has a population of less than twenty thousand people according to 

the final report of the 1950 Federal census. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

Countv Affairs Division 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

Jesse P. L&on, Jr. BY 

Reviewing Assistant Ro 

Everett Hutchinson 

Executive Assistant 

Assistant 

RHH:awo:b