PRICE DANIEL’ :~ 

-InmY GENERAL 

fmust 8, .igW 

_,. 

Hon. !i?oiiA..Graven : ' 0~ini.0.g ~0~. V-332 

County Audit.or 

McLennan County I I&:_ donstitutiona~ity of 

Waoo,v Texas H. B. ~6831 ,!jOth Leg+- 

lature, relative to 

Dear 

fice 

.+al.srIes of assistant 

Sir: 

district attor?eys. 

:X0& request f0G.A op.&ii, from~this ofon the abo.ve:.subject mattepi Is as fo1low.s: 

‘. %he W.strict~Judges i@i Con.m+saIoners Court..of McLennax,Couuty.hav& approved, 

appointments ,snd set salpies of asaWx4nt 

distribt attornegs.&n accordance wIt.h the 

provisions of ,Eou~~~BIll #683 of the.~sO$h 

Legisliiture. I shall t@ank you to advise 

n!e.as to.the.coqstitntI~nalIty,~of this law', 

,. 

"~.I&&:,&r&d.b~ me to the:%&-, 

trict Attomxe$ of this county Concixq... 

this question brought- the reply that. he. _... 

would.prob&bly.be ilIsq~llf~& to.pad on .- 

the :@e.&Ioq by. r@dn"of the f&t ythat it... 

Involves his office and he,asked that.,I..add3iess ny Inquiry directly to'you." 

.,_.’ .- Hi B;. 683; Acts~ OP .the 50$h.'Legislature,~ p. 

364, Veruou.'s‘Texas Session Law $!ervIce, reads Ih part 

a3 follows; . .:.. ..:: . 

.: -.: 

.~. '~.~Sect.~& 1.' 'rJlat.from.,tid after t&6 .' 

: pa&age of this Act, In a Judicial Dititirict~ .I ~~-. 

comp~sed.,of one,or more cow+tIes and: Iti~~ .'.. 

which the population In auy one of saI& 

oounties., as determ@ed @y..the ladpreced- 

,btg Federal Census,-18 not le.ss $he+ seventy 

thousaW (7O,OOO)..and not more than two~,hundred and twenty thousand (220,000) inhabltax&s, and In.wh$ch,county~there exe two (2) 

or more District Courts the District Attdrney 

.,or the Criminal District Attorney, with the 

oonsent of the Combined majority of the District Judges and Commissioners Court of such 
172 Hon. Tom A. Craven - Page 2 (V-332) 

county, Is hereby authorized to appoint 

at their dIscr&Ion, not more than six (6) 

Investigators or assistants who shall receive a salary of not more than Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($3,750) 

per annum, nor'letis than Three Thousand Dallars ($3,000) per anuum, the amount of such 

salary to'be fixed by the District Attorney 

or Criminal District Attorney end approved by 

a majority of the District Judges; such Investigators or assistants, &s well as the 

DIstrI&t Attorney or Criminal District Attorney shall be allowed a reasonable amount for 

expenses not to exceed SIX Hundred Dollars 

MOO), each, per ennum. . . . 

"Sec. 2. Said District Attorney and 

CrImIual District Attorney shall also be authorized to appoint a stenographer. . . 

"Sec. 3. The salary of such InvestIgatore OF assistants and stenographer, and the 

expenses provided for In this Act shall be 

paid monthly by the Commissioners Court of 

such'oountg.out of the General Fund of t@e 

oounty:or,. a$ the discretl6n of the Catission&w Court, out of the Jury Fuud of.saId 

county; said Investigators or assistants may 

be.requIred to give bond and shall halie authopilty-tider the airection'of the,DIst&$ct,~ 

Attorhey iX?'CrGiInal'DIst~Ict Atorn@ to 

make' arrests and execute process ‘In drIn&nal 

cagers and -in oabes growing out of the etiforcement of all laws." 

Generally, the bill meets the constitutional 

reqnirements of being limited to .one subject which Is 

expressed In Its title, and of being sufficiently cer- 

~taln and definite In Its terms. !Be bill, howeveri-1s. 

what is commonly referred to as a "bracket bill." 'We-' 

assume, therefore, that your specific @estIon Is whether this bill violates Artlola III; Section 56, of the 

Texas Constitution which reads In.part as follows: 

"The Legislature shall not, except as 

otherwise .provIded In this Constitutioti, pass 

any local or special law, . . . 

"R~gulating'the' affairs of coun$ies. . . . .% 
Hon. Tom A. Craven - Page 3 (v-332) " : f '~. ~~~' ..',f~'~~J 

,"Creating offices, or ~pres'cribing the " 

power2 and duties of officers, in ooiuities 

. . . 

Ii. B. 683, Acts of the 50th Legislature, is 

.,'..~,applioable tothe following judicial districts: 

.I :':19th, 28th,, 30th, 34th, 41st, 53rd, 5&th, 56th, 5kFF' 

60th, 74th, 78th, 89th, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 98th,'103&~ 

107th, 117th and 126th. 

ties: 

It affects the following counCameron, being within the 103rd and 107th judicial districts: El Paso, being withinthe 34thj 41st 

and 65th judicial districts; Galveston, beingwithin 

the 'lOth'snd:56th judicial districts; HIdalgo/being 

within the 92nd and 93rd judicial districts; Jefferson, 

being within the 58th and~60th judicial distriots; McLennan, being within then 19th, 54th and 74th judicial 

districts; Nueces, beingwithinthe 28th,., 94th and 117th 

judicial districts; Travis, beingwIthin the 53rd, 98th 

and 126th judicial districts; Wichita, being within the 

3Oth, 78th and 89th judicial districts. See Article 

199, v,.,c.s. 

,, 

It is apparent that .H. B. 683; Acts of~the 50th 

Legislature, falls ,wIthin the classification of ,a local, 

or special law and would be Invalid if it is governed by 

the quoted provisions of Article III, SectIon.56; of the 

Constitution. See Fort ~Worth v. BobbItt;l21.Tex. 14, 

36 S.W. (26) 470, 41 S.W. (2d) 228;' Bexar Cou.nty,v. Tynan, 

1g8;Tex. '223, 97 S.W. (26) 

136 Tex.~'370,~#150 S.W. (26 

,P&so County, 

Tex. 201, 152 S.W. (26) ,lO 

Wood, 137 

However; it is our opinion that H. B. 683 Is not 

governed by Article III, Section 56, ,Texas Constitution, 

b&by Article V, .Section 1, which reads as follows: 

"The judicial power of this State shall be 

vested in one Supreme,Court;in Courts of Civil 

Appeals, in a Court .of Criminal Appeals, in~District Courts, in County Courts~, in Commissioners 

Courts,,.in CouHs~,of~Justices of the'Peace+. and 

in such other courts as may be provided by:law. 

"The Criminal District Court of Galveston 

and Harris Counties shall continue with the district jurisdiction and organization now existing 

by law until otherwise provided by 'law. 

"The,Legislature may establish 'such other 

co~urts asp it may deem necessary and prescribe 

the jurisdiction~and organization thereof, and 
Hon. Tom A. Craven - Page 4 ~(V-332) 

may .COnfOrm the jurisdiction ,of the District 

and other Inferior courts thereto." 

Haa'is County v. Croaker, 224 S.W. 792, affirmed 

112 Tex. 450, 248 S.W. 652, upheld a statute, special In 

character, which fixed the salary of the district attorney 

of the orimInal district court of Harris County. We quote 

from said ease the following: 

"The major Insistence of.plaintlff In 

error Is that the act of 1911, In so far as 

it fixed the compensation of the district attorney at a different amount than that allowed 

by general laws to distriot attorneys of other 

counties of the same class as Harris County, 

Is a special and local law, regulating to that 

extent the affairs of Harris County, and therefore void, because violative of section 56, 

art. 3, of the Constitution of the state. . . . 

"It Is unnecessary to Inquire as to whether or not the act creating the criminal district 

court of Harris County Is a local or special. 

law. The creation of this. courtrests upon the 

express and direct constitutlonal provisi?on 

heretofore quoted; that Is, that portionpf section 1 of article 5 which declares that the 

criminal district court of ffalves,ton and Herr18 

coindies shall oontinue with the, district, juria- 

~diotlon, and organicatlon existing by law, uutil 

otherwise provided by law. 

"The criminal district court of Calveston 

and Harris counties then existed with a defined 

district and the jurisdiction set forth by statute, and the orgsnizatlon consisted of the district judge, the district attorney, and the district clerk. This constitutional provision expressly continued the existenoe of that court 

and that organisation, until It was changed by 

law, and by language, which admits of no other 

Interpretation, authorized the Legislature to 

change the~di;trIct, the jurisdiction, and the 

organization. 

we quote the following from Garvey v. Matthews, 

79 s.w. (28) 335, error refused: 

!'me act creating the court having been expressly authorized by the ConStitUtiOml Provisions last referred to, It Is uMecesserY to 
Eon. Tom A. Craven - .P+ge 5 in ;(V-332),,~: :, :.. ..,~ .’ 

._ 

..c 

consider whether ~,theit;:act,was.looal..or . 

special in character.within .the'oontemplation of article 3; SS.56 and 57,'df.. 'r 

the Constitution. '~Ha??Pis :county 'vi 

Crooker, 112 Texi 450, 2:48, 'S.W. 652. " 

"The powerrof~the l&slat& to.fix 

the -salary'of:the judge,.& this county. :i:: 

cqurt at law'.is~ an incident. toj'the power:i:,. 

.to.create .the - ,c+t,, 'and restsupon the 

s~e..,cons,titutional sutho,ritg; 1: ..There was 1~1,: 

ample ~posrer to 'fix the 'SSlary ~'inl the: first]. 

Instance; as ias done bysection ll‘cif'the 

Act .of 1927. .: By .the same -token..there is 

the. power to amend :that s,ectiod,:'as.,was;. _ 

done by section 1 ofthe Act of 1933 '(Ver-" 

non's~.Anp. civ.. ,st. arlk.J970-01, .B ll)... :

,paTPlS coul+v. drooker, suprEL.v _., ".~ 

. _ _. 

Jones v. Anderson;'(Ci+. App.') 189 $.W. (id) 

:-. .65:, :error ~re~s~~,~~~phe~d'.th~;special~la~ .sbolishing 

,th+office of county attorneys of.,&s@r $+uty for .like 

. ~,~r.ea:sp~ii.~ :.; ,. ::,!: . . ., :,: .+ .:.: -, :.:.,..:.~.. '-, 

,. ,I, _: .,I ; I. pi. _, .".:I : 1.,.. : : '.c ,..: ~. 

in -; ,~J,ie:: 4gt;.,~grsj;a~nre..'e~~~ted. H., B 1 &j';,ij&h 

pro&ided'-for"ainni&l salaMes;“~payable’moh&~ of'official:court reporters of..ea.ch,~strictpo~t, .civil*or 

: cri@nal,, and of each 

criminal, at 

.~ be fixiid &nd .apportibnedlsmqng..the. sffected counties;..by 

the respective, j@ges.,of those. .courts, but exempt.ed.from 

the proqisio.ns.of,the~Act Qe%ar and Tg?rant.: counties. 

The.-Court: of:.Civil Appeals in the case.oP Tom Green 

ty: v.. Proffltt.,..193; S.W. (2d).,8$5; had .before~.it .he 

Counquestion of whether..the. provi,si~ons. of:H. .B.' 555,;. .*gth. 

Leg;,~ Violated~AMicle III,Section 56~,.:of the,.Texas iconstitution. &We quote from~ said case the follo,wing: ~.,.. 

: 

"It may beconceded that under-the~hold- 

\.~ -ings in these cases I& B. '555 falls within the 

.~.pla.ssifica,tipn,bf~ a, local Or special.lav,.and, 

-would be .inva.lia .ifg it. is. governed by~the _:. .,.~. 

: : .quoted, provisions of Const. 'Art. III,,, Sec.; 56 '. 

..,. . .:. . . . j.~ 

"Whether 'ti. B: 555 .is properlyciassified 

.:as: 8 'locai. or special l&W is~ not;. imp+t-+t’, :a 

since it. 3.8 not -governedby .Const. Art..III,' ;" 

Sec. 56, but bg,Art. V,:Se.c.,l,~',:...... .., _:' 
PYS eon. Tom A. Craven - ~Page 6 (V-332) 

%hi~~p~ovision has been construed as 

authorising local or special laws affecting 

the functioning of the different courts 

throughout the state: . . . 

"In so far as H. B. 555 relates to district court reporters it deals with state 

employees. In so far as it relates to reporters of county courts at law it provides 

as an incident for the functioning of courts 

which the Legislature creates under express 

authority of Art. V, Sec. 1. . . . 

"We hold H. B. 555 valid as against the 

urged ground of invalidity, . . .' 

.-, 

.: 

In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion 

that E.'B. 683 is not governed by Article III, Section ,,~ 

56 of our State Constitution. . . .1 

Section 3 of H. B. 683 provides that the sala- ,'~ 

ry of the investigators or assistants and stenographer 

covered by the Act shall be paid out of ~the General Fund 

'"at the discretion of the Commission- 

:I, 

of the county or, 

'BPS Court, out of.the Jury Fund of said county." 

,: 

'\ Article VIII, Sections 9, of our State Constitution; authorizes the levy of a tsx "not exceeding fifteeny (15) cents to pay jurors;"- In construing Article 

VIII;~Section 9, ,the oourts have uniformly held that the 

provisions of this Section of the Constitution nwere designed, not &rely to limit the tax rate for certain 

therein designated purposes, but to require that any and 

allmoney raised by taxation for any such purpose shall 

be applied, faithfully, to that particular purpose, as 

needed therefor, and not to any other purpose or use 

whatsoever." 'Carroll v. ~Williams, 202 S.W, 504, 506. 

See also Ault v. Hill County, 102 Tex. 335, 116 S.X. 359.. 

The Jury Fund of the county is a constitutional 

fund composed of tax money levied for 'the sole purpose 

of paying jurors. The Legislature is therefore prohiblted by Article VIII, Section 9, from authorizing such tax 

levy to be used for any other purpose than "to pay jurors." 

Therefore, it is our opinion that the portion of Section 

3 of H. B. 683, Acts of the 50th Legislature, authorieing 

the Commissioners' Court to pay the salaries of the investigators or assistants and stenographer out of the Jury 

Fund is unconstitutional and void. 
Hon. Tom A. Craven ~7. Page 7 (V-332) ;1 d’/ 

The Act containsno "separability" or "saving" 01aUs8. .Hovever in the case, oft Ohristo her v: 

City of'El.Paso, (Civ..App.)~98!S;U. (26).39{ it was 

held that the unconstitutional provision of &ticle 

1269h, V.C.:S., dealing with nuuiicipkl airports, which 

exempted cities from liability for injuries to persons caused by negligence of.theiroperating agents, 

did not render the entire Act.void.,'We quote the 

following from said~ case: 

"We do not'concur in the. contention 

t that the invalidity of .the exemption provision, inthe absence'of a saving clause, 

renders the entire actunconstitutional. 

While it is true that the provision is incidental to the main purpose of the act, 

.yet It is capable.of being separated from 

the act without materially affecting that 

main purpose." :. 

Since the ,unconstittitional provision in H. B. 

683~i.s' capable of being separated from the tact without 

materially affecting the main purp,ose, it Is our opinion 

that the remainder of H1 .B. 683'is.constitutional and 

valid.; 

SUMMARY 

'H. B. 683 (Acts .sOth,Leg., 1947).provldl~ for compensation.of.,assistant dis- 

~ .t.rict attorneys and.stenographers to,the 

district attorneyk? y;",'n :&unties, is 

.constitutional. c. 1, Constitution of Texas. The bct'ls notgoverned by 

Art. III, Sec. 56,~:prohibiting .the en&tment of special or local laws. Although 

.the provision of H. B. 683 authorizing the 

Commissioners' Court to.ptiy the salaries 

out of the Jtiy Fund iiolates~'Article VIII, 

Section 9, of the Texas Constitution, the 

remainder of the-'&t pro@Llmg .for payment 

out.of the General Fund is valid. 

very truly SOUPS 

JR:djm '. ATTORREY GERERAL OF TEXAS