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 to your letter of Maroh 26, 1941, 

requesting the opinion of this department on 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 oourt reporters 

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, Criminal Distriot 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 Title 1 of the Revised Civil Statutes has been given. 

Our inquiry is directed to its constitutionality. 

Section 56 of Article 3 of the Constitution of 

Texas reads, in part, as follows: 

"The Legislature shall not, exoept as 

otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass 

any looal or special law, authorizing: 
Honorable C. H. Gilder, Page 2 

5Regulatlng the atfaire of oountieu, 

* * *. I 

"Andin all other oases where a general 

law oan be mado appliotb+e$ ~0 looal or speoial 

law shall be enaotod; . 

Wa have been unable to dlsoorer that the Constitution 

has *otherwise provided* for the paraage of looal or speoial 

laws relating to the oompensation of oourt reporters. We must 

look to Seotion 56 of Artlole 3. If Senate Bill No. 184 is a 

looal or speoial law prohibited by that 5eotion of the Conetltution, it mattersnot that the constitutional notioe prerequisite to the passage of an authorized looal or s?e&ial law has 

been givsn. 

We are of the opinion that Senate Bill No, 184 is in 

the very teeth of and coneequently prohibited by Section 56 of 

Artiole 3 of the Constitution of Texas. Undoubtedly SelEte 

Bill No. 184 regulates the affairs of 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's Annotated 

Civil Statutes. The ~subjeot is therefore one about which a 

general law oan be and has been made applicable. The following 

0858s are in point: 

Altgelt v. 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 the Legislature reorganizing the 2jrd Judicial Distriot 

and creating the 80th Judicial District wherein the District 

Clerk of H:rris County was given $1200.00 per ye&r additional 

compensation. The court said: 

"As before stated, we think these declarations 

of the law settle the qtiestioxi, and that so muoh of 

this Act as attempted to award the $1200.00 additional oompenaation must be held unconstitutional and void. 
Honorablr 0. H. Gilmer, Pago 3 

That a gmeral law oould be mado l p lloablo 

to the 8attor oi oontpsnsating the D 1 8triot 

Clerk of Harris County is best dsmonatrated 

by oltation ot thr taot that ons l x lmted 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 3 8 

to all 

,000, 

it ms further provided that distriot olerka, 

among other snumeratsd orfloars, might also retain one-fourth of the exaaaa fees oolleoted 

by them until such one-fourth amounted to the 

sum of $1,500.00. So that under these provisions 

of the general laws of the State then prevailing, 

the Dlstriot Clerkof Harris County war limited to 

a total oompensetion of $4,250.00 per annum. Furthermoro, by Revised Statutes, Artlole 3891, the 

Legislature made clear its purpose sot to permit 

the dlstrlot olerks in those wuntlor having 

more than one distrlot oourt to rotain their 

maximum of fees for servioes performed in eaoh 

of such courts by this enaotment: 

“In all counties in thla state having more 

than ona judioial distriot, the dlstriot clerks 

thereof ahall in no oase be allowed fees in exoeea of the maximum fees allowed clerks in 

oountleshering only one distriot oourt.‘w 

The SupremeCourt granted a writ of error but affirmed 

the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, saying: 

*We granted the writ of error beoause we 

questioned whether this provision granting 

additional compensation to this officer was 

speoial or looal, in view of the fact it Is e 

part of a 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 neoessary provisions and essential 

elements of the Court; but that does not 

justify the inclusion of local or speoial laws 

or provisions which are in themselves subject 
Honorablo 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 enaotment would olrarly 

be a spooial and looal law, and violatire 

of seotlon 56, artlole 3.' Can the faot that 

it is lnoluded in 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 so hold would 

be to look to the Sorm and not the spirit and 

purpose of the law. 

a * * l . 

"The aot oreeting the 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 oonditions we are of the opinion 

that the faot that it was inoludod within 

the body of the general law does not change 

ita oharaoter, nor make it immune from the 

oonstltutionel prohibition.W 

You are therefore advised 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 conoerning a subjeot about whioh a general law 

oan be and has been m&de applicable; and oonsequbntly that APPRCVED 

it fells within the prohlbiticn of Seotion 56 of Article 3 GPINICE 

of the Constitution of Texas. 

CCK,?IT"E'

BY ?3m 

In view 0r our answer to your first question, we 

CHAIRMAN 

rind it unneoessary to pass upon your ssoond. 

Very truly yours 

APPROVED APR. 10, 19W ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

b 

a) Gerald C. Mann 

A ORNEYGEWEKALOFTEXM BY (9) James D. Smullen 

Assistant