OFFICB OF THR ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEUS
AUSTIN
Gerald C. Yam Attorney General

Honorable 0. 8. Gilmer, Ohalrman Committar on Judloiary and Unlfonn State Lawa House of Representative6 Austin, Texas

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3339 Re: Constitutionality of Senate Bill NO. 184 firing compensation or 00urt reporters 0f Berar County, Texas.
This la in reply toyour letter ofMaroh 26, 1941, requesting theopinion of this departmenton the following questlons:

"L. Does the bill violate Seotion 56 

### or Article 3 of the Texas constitution?
*2. Does the bill violate any protleion of the Texas Constitution in authorizing the salaries of the oourtreporters of Bexar County to be paid out of the Jury Fund of said oounty?"

Senate Bill No. 184 provides ror the appointment and flxos the oompensatlon of court reporters in eaoh Distriot Court, CriminalDistriot Court, end County Court at Law of Bexar County,Texas. This oompensation is to be paid monthly by the commissioners' oourt out of the general fund or the jury fund of Bexar County as the oommissioners’court may eleot. It Is admittedly a loeal law applying only to Bexar County, Texas. The notice prerequisite to the passage cf a local law required by the Constitution of Texas and Article 2 of Title1 of the Revised Civil Statutes has been given. Our inquiry is directed to its constitutionality.

Section 

### 56ofArticle 

### 3 of the Constitution of Texas reads, in part, as follows:

"TheLegislature shall not, exoeptas otherwiseprovided in this Constitution,pass any looalor special law, authorizing:Honorable C. H. Gilder, Page 2

5Regulatlngthe atfaire of oountieu, * * *. I "Andin all other oaseswhere a general law oan bemado appliotb+e$ ~0 looal or speoial law shallbe enaotod;

. Wa have beenunable to dlsoorer that the Constitution has *otherwiseprovided* for the paraage of looal or speoial laws relating to the oompensation of oourtreporters. We must look to Seotion 56 of Artlole 3. If Senate Bill No. 184 is a looal or speoial law prohibited by that 5eotionof the Conetltution, itmattersnot that the constitutionalnotioe prerequisite to thepassage of an authorized looal or s?e&ial lawhas been givsn.

We are of the opinion that Senate Bill No, 184 isin the very teeth of and coneequently prohibited by Section 56 of Artiole 3 of the Constitution of Texas. Undoubtedly SelEte Bill No. 184 regulatesthe affairsof counties.Moreover, we find that the Legislature haw already by general law dealt with the appointment,oompensation and duties of oourt reporter5. Artioles 2321-2327b-1, inclusive,Vernon'sAnnotated Civil Statutes. The~subjeotis therefore oneaboutwhich a general law oan be and has beenmade applicable.The following 0858sare inpoint:

Altgeltv. Gutzeit, 109 Tex. 123, 201 S,W. 400; Ward 7. Harris Co. (T.C.A.1919) 209 S.W. 792,writ refused; Austin Brothers T. Patton (Corn. Appr 1926) 288 S.W, 182; Kitohens V. Roberts (T.C.A.1930) 24 S.W. (2d) 464, writ refused; Duclos
v. Harrie Co., 251 S.W. 569, affirmed, Sup. Ct., 114 Tex. 147, 263 S.W. 562.

In the Duolos case the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals **was** ooncernmh the validity of that FOrtiOn Of an Act of theLegislaturereorganizing the 2jrd JudicialDistriot and creating the 80th Judicial Districtwherein the District Clerk of H:rris Countywas given $1200.00per ye&r additional compensation. The court said:

"As before stated, we think these declarations of the law settle the qtiestioxi, and that somuoh of thisAct as attempted to award the $1200.00 additional oompenaationmust be held unconstitutionaland void.Honorablr 0.H. Gilmer, Pago 3

That a gmeral law oould be mado l p lloablo to the 8attor oi oontpsnsating the D 18triot Clerk of Harris County is best dsmonatrated by oltation ot thr taot that ons l xlmted

at the tima this sprolal attempt to add to that oompensation
was math. By Artlole 38g3, Revised Statutrs of 1911, the maximum amount of rees the Dlstrist Olerk of Harris Uounty might retain was fixrd at $2,750.00,while by Artiolr 3889, applyin oountles with a population inexoess of 

### 38 to all ,000, it ms furtherprovided that distriot olerka, among other snumeratsdorfloars, might also retain one-fourth of the exaaaa fees oolleoted by them until such one-fourth amounted to the 

### sumof $1,500.00. So that under these provisions of the general laws of the State then prevailing, the Dlstriot ClerkofHarris Countywar limited to a total oompensetion of $4,250.00 per annum. Furthermoro, by Revised Statutes, Artlole 3891, the Legislaturemade clear its purposesot to permit the dlstrlot olerks in those wuntlor having more than onedistrlot oourt to rotain their maximum of fees for servioesperformed in eaoh of such courtsby this enaotment:

“In all counties in thla state havingmore than ona judioialdistriot, the dlstriot clerks thereof ahall inno oase be allowed fees in exoeea of themaximum fees allowed clerks in oountleshering only one distriot oourt.‘w
The SupremeCourt granted a writ of errorbut affirmed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, saying:

*We granted the writ of error beoausewe questionedwhether this provision granting additional compensation to this officerwas speoialor looal, in view of the fact it Is e part ofa law creating e distriot oourt, Wioh is a general Law. An act oreating
a district court is e general law, and 85 a matter of course the Legislature has the authority in the oreating sot to legislate as to all neoessaryprovisions and essential elements of the Court; but that does not justify the inclusion of local or speoial laws orprovisionswhich are in themselves subjectHonorablo 0. H. Gllmsr, Paga 4

to general legislation, and mhish im raot are provided for and oontrollod by gsnaral laws. Suoh prorlaiona, oven though lnoludad in a (aneral law, are nerertholess spoolal and looel.
"If the Logialature had, by eneotmont other than in the bill oreeting the oourt, attempted to inoroaso the salary of the olsrk of Harris Oounty alone, auoh enaotmentwould olrarly be a spooialand looal law, and violatire of seotlon 56, artlole 3.' Can the faot that it is lnoludedin the prorlaiona of a general law oreating a new oourt in a aounty in whloh a olerk for ill dlstriot oourta was already provided andhis oompensation fixed under a gonoral law, the aame a8 for all other olerka ir like oountles, ohange it8 nature and effeot from that of a speolel and looal law? We thinknot. To sohold would be to look to the Sorm andnot the spiritand purpose of the law.

a* * l.
"The aot oreetingthe wurt waa essentially a general aot or law. Tho provision proriding for extra oompensation of the clerk dirterent trom all other like olerks, as already provide& for by the law In the Maximum Fee Bill, was essentially speoial and local. Under these oonditionswe are of the opinion that the faot that itwas inoludodwithin the body of thegeneral law does not change ita oharaoter,normake it immune from the oonstltutionel prohibition.W

You are thereforeadvised in answer to your first question, that in our opinion Senate Bill No. 184 is e looal or special law regulating the affairs of Bexar County, that it is a law conoerninga subjeot about whioh a general law oan be and has beenm&de applicable; and oonsequbntly that APPRCVED it fells within the prohlbiticnof Seotion 56 ofArticle 3 GPINICE of the Constitution of Texas. CCK,?IT"E'E BY ?3m
Inview 0r our answer to your first question,we CHAIRMAN rind itunneoessary to pass upon your ssoond. Very trulyyours APPROVED APR. 10, 19W ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

ba) Gerald C.Mann A ORNEYGEWEKALOFTEXM BY (9) James D. Smullen Assistant