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 accordancewIt.h

the provisionsof ,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 questionbrought- the reply that.

he._... would.prob&bly.be ilIsq~llf~& to.pad on .- the :@e.&Ioq by.

r@dn"of the f&t ythatit... Involveshis office and he,asked that.,I..add3iess ny Inquiry directly to'you."

.,_. ’ .-Hi B;.

683; Acts~

OP .the50$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,ormore cow+tIesand: 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 CriminalDistrictAttorney,with the oonsent of the Combinedmajority of the District Judges and Commissioners Court of such172 Hon. Tom A. Craven - Page 2 (V-332)

county, Is hereby authorizedto appoint at their dIscr&Ion, not more than six (6) Investigators

or assistantswho shall receive a salary of not more than Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($3,750) per annum, nor'letis than Three ThousandDallars ($3,000)

per anuum, the amount of such salary to'be fixed by the DistrictAttorney or CriminalDistrictAttorney end approvedby a majority of the DistrictJudges; such Investigatorsor assistants, &s well as the DIstrI&tAttorney or CriminalDistrict Attorney shall be allowed a reasonableamount for expensesnot to exceed SIX Hundred Dollars MOO), each, per ennum. . . . "Sec. 2. Said DistrictAttorney and CrImIualDistrict Attorney shall also be authorized to appoint a stenographer.

. . "Sec. 3. The salary of such InvestIgatore OF assistantsand stenographer, and the expensesprovided 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 discretl6nof the Catission&w Court, out of the Jury Fuud of.saId county; said Investigators or assistantsmay be.requIredto give bond and shall halieauthopilty-tider

the airection'ofthe,DIst&$ct,~ Attorhey iX?'CrGiInal'DIst~Ict Atorn@ to make' arrests and execute process ‘In drIn&nal cagers and -inoabes growing out of the etiforcement of all laws." Generally,the bill meets the constitutional reqnirementsof being limited to .onesubjectwhich Is expressed In Its title, and of being sufficiently cer- ~taln and definite In Its terms. !Be bill, howeveri-1s. what is commonlyreferred to as a "bracketbill." 'We-' assume, therefore,that your specific@estIon Is whether this bill violatesArtlola III; Section 56, of the Texas Constitution which reads In.part as follows: "The Legislatureshall 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

to the 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:56thjudicial districts; HIdalgo/being within the 92nd and 93rd judicial districts; Jefferson, being within the 58th and~60th judicial distriots; McLennan, being within then19th, 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 ~Worthv. 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&soCounty,
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, ,TexasConstitution, 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,Legislaturemay establish 'suchother co~urts aspit may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction~and organization thereof, andHon. Tom A. Craven - Page 4 ~(V-332)

may .COnfOrm

the jurisdiction,ofthe 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 districtattorney of the orimInaldistrict court of Harris County. We quote from said ease the following:

"Themajor Insistenceof.plaintlffIn 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 specialand local law, regulatingto that extent the affairs of Harris County, and therefore void, because violative of section 56, art. 3, of the Constitutionof the state.

. . . "It Is unnecessaryto Inquire as to whether or not the act creating the criminaldistrict 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 criminaldistrict court of ffalves,ton and Herr18 coindies shall oontinuewith the, district, juria- ~diotlon,

and organicatlonexistingby law, uutil otherwiseprovided by law.
"The criminaldistrict court of Calveston and Harris counties then existedwith a defined district and the jurisdictionset forth by statute, and the orgsnizatlonconsisted 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 changedby law, and by language,which admits of no other Interpretation,

authorized the Legislatureto 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 authorizedby the ConStitUtiOml Provisions last referred to, It Is uMecesserY toEon. Tom A. Craven - .P+ge 5 in ;(V-332),,~: :, :.. ..,~ . ’

._

..c considerwhether~,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~thel&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 :thats,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:courtreporters 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.,ofthose.

.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

.heCounquestion 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. governedby~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. TomA. Craven - ~Page 6 

### (V-332)

%hi~~p~ovision has been construedas authorisinglocal or special laws affecting the functioning

of the different courts throughoutthe 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 incidentfor the functioningof courts which the Legislaturecreatesunder 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 governedby Article III, Section ,,~ 

### 56 of our State Constitution.

. ..1

Section 

### 3 of H. B. 

### 683 provides that the sala- ,'~ ry of the investigators or assistantsand stenographer coveredby the Act shall be paid out of ~the General Fund '"atthe discretion of the Commission- :I, of the county or, 'BPS Court, out of.the Jury Fund of said county." ,: '\ ArticleVIII, Sections 9, of our State Constitution; authorizesthe levy of a tsx "not exceedingfifteeny

### (15) cents to pay jurors;"- In construingArticle VIII;~Section

9, ,the oourts have uniformlyheld that the provisionsof this Section of the Constitutionnwere designed,not &rely to limit the tax rate for certain therein designated purposes,but to require that any and allmoney raised by taxationfor any such purpose shall be applied, faithfully, to that particularpurpose, 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 composedof tax money levied for 'thesole purpose of paying jurors. The Legislatureis thereforeprohiblted by ArticleVIII, 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 investigatorsor assistantsand stenographerout of the Jury Fund is unconstitutional and void.Hon. Tom A. Craven ~7. Page 7 (V-332) ;1d’/

The Act containsno "separability" or "saving" 01aUs8. .Hovever in the case,

oft Ohristoher 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.,'Wequote the following from said~ case:
"We do not'concur in the. contention t that the invalidityof .theexemptionprovision, inthe absence'ofa saving clause, renders the entire actunconstitutional. While it is true that the provision is incidentalto the main purpose of the act, .yet It is capable.of being separatedfrom the act withoutmaterially affecting that main purpose." :. Since the ,unconstittitional provision in H. B. 683~i.s' capable of being separatedfrom the tact without materiallyaffectingthe 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

attorneysand.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 .theen&tment of special or local laws. Although .theprovisionof H. B. 683 authorizingthe Commissioners'

Court to.ptiy

the salaries out of the Jtiy Fund iiolates~'Article VIII, Section 9, of the Texas Constitution,the remainderof the-'&t pro@Llmg .for payment out.of the General Fund is valid.
very truly SOUPS JR:djm '. ATTORREY GERERAL OF TEXAS