**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Honorable Roger Thurmond DlstrlotAttorney Sixty-Third Judlolal Dlstrlot Del Rio, Texas

Dsar Sir:

less than 25,000 lnhabltants,,onn demand the msxlmum salpox alloved uru3er,thle,~statuto, where 811 the C6imty~'WXIolals eaumereted are reoelvlng the maxlknua4mneflts regardle?e~ of fees received in 1935, ~ult~~'the,excepti~~ar the county Attorney. Aod vhether ur bt In your oplnlon, if all auoh offiolals are &o rtielvlng the maxlmum benefits, vlth tho exoeptlon ei that ss County Attorney, la this diacrinlnetorjr,

ad to this offloe. i .d ' ., ' "PC&Z gout.*lnZOrdlOn thl8 fiPplI4S to the office of Uountg Attorney In Maverick County, for which I have been asked for an opinion In this mstter."
tiwerick County has a population of lC,O*?l inhabitants acoordlng to the 1340 Federal Census. The aaaeaaed valuation la leas than $10,000,000.00 according to the last preceding approved tax roll of such County.

### aoot1oa 15,&tlol* 

### 3912ahr Voraoa'8 Anaotatsd Clvll

statutea,

made l mlla8a

ìThsC~@ @Ial8r8í c ovrtin 0w atto8 lm 0 doPul8t1ol.of 1088 thaa tvutty thml88&l (20, 53 ) Lnhabltantn, 

### l

oooob~ to thm l88t miag~ 

### ?o&eml c8Mw at 

### the ifrat 

### mgulu moot eaoh 

### 48loIa8r

yeerr ry pear aa 

### o omptma atloo

or l lomat

aM oaolaot

fflosra Qo 8srl8ry

barfr. mec~881-* c o wt la 088b or Enlahooutltloslirhee~mlt~me,a~lt rhrllk its dutt, to tlx the ralsrlor of C~&mlnal snOtriot 88.8 ausb or- :

oompenaatioabyraid offioerbhlr **said** Paolty 

### rortheM0w1 S*rror 19358sdaot 1 O=t#i%r thomaxImmcrllar& •wh&fl4~uW~l8v8~8t~ August24th,l93!i,8ad not mom tbaathemxlmu fmount allwad nwh orfboP u&or l8u8 a.iat~ A-t 2&h, 1935, pswidad, that irr omat a pqmlatlonoilerrtho.ntw&ytharsrrd lnhabltarat8,

8ooordLng to tbo 1.88 pllwbd~ i'edml

ago ofzxlOzwl4oFa~tLosrumltnlu8ti4uudgswtded furthewth8tin8lloountle8bs 8 populatiacror sot lea8 then tventythouaaad end ead not more thun tventy-five thou88ld (25,ooo), 800ordfng to the lamt p~~oediag Fade~!~l COMU~, 8rd vhioh h08 @a 888088ti vsluEt~ollinexoe88 of'hrsnt 41rrmll1on (025,wo,ow.00) Dollar8 eoaonV.ng to the 1881 pr4Oodbg sppFW4d tax roll of suoh oountle8, the oountr ju&e, sheriff, OsUty attorney, aaeemaon and oolleotor of t6%0m, **00uRtJ olepk**  **~rd** dlstrLot Olerk, the asxiwm sal8x-y18 hemby fix4d at Three Thousaad Seven lhuvbed sod Fifty ($3,750&O) Dollerr.

### 588

Ecnorable Roger Thurmond, p8ge 

### 3

“The OaPpeMatlOn of a CrlmlMl Dlstrlot Attorney, or County Attorney who periorms the duties of Dlrtrlot Attorneya, togethor with the oompenSatiOn of hi8 8s@i@tallt@, Shall be paid out or the county orrioera~ S8lery Fund, but the State shall pay lnt0 8UOh Rrnd eaoh pear an 8mWnt equal to e sumvhloh beam the mame proportion to the tot81 s8lary OS suoh CHmlnsl Dlrtriot Attommy, or County Attorney perfomaing the dutieo OS a Dlrtrlot Attorney, together with the salery OS his as3lst8nt8, es 811 Se10nJ fee8 cOlleOted by suoh oSSlolal during the year of 

### 1935 bear? to the total fees colleoted by suoh oSSloi81 during suah year.” (Duplioatlon of vords “und not mope than the maximum allowed such offloer under lavs existing August 24, 

### 1935"appears in enrolled bill.) As Maverlok County has a population of lerr than twenty thousand (‘20,000) lnhabltants aooording to the 1940 Federal Census, the foregobigprovisions of Seotlon 

### 15 of Art1010 39120 are rppllCable to said county.

The sela~4es of the county osrioiaie 0r Msverlolr must be determineda& fixed l.n aooordance with the p~ovlsfons of Artloles 

### 3883, 3891 end Sootion 

### 15, Artlole 

### 3912e,08 the Cmmisrlonera~ Court OS said County h8s provided for the oompensation of all County OSSloers on e salary basla under the ProvisiOnS OS 88id Seoflou 

### 15. (See the oaae of Naoogdooher Co. v. Winder, 140 9. W. (26) 972).

This department held ln Opinion no. 

### O-744 “Them v88 no p~ovlsion of the statute guermnteelng the oSflos~ he should first reoslvs the amount allowed under the prWlsioM of Art1010 

### 3883, so that the offloer had to pay euthorlsed expendIturea out of the funds ooming into his hands, lrrespeotlve OSvhether the amoUnt mentioned in the Art1010 vas oarned OF oolleoted. Therefore, the total sum earned as compensation by him vas the net total earnned after payment of his authorized expenses. The Legislature did not stipulate ‘earned by the office8 but rather earned by him.”

On December 

### 3, 1937, this depmtment held, in the Opinion vritten by Honorable James N. North, Assistant Attorney General, addressed to Mr. blllllam J, Fanning, County AttoPMy, Hopkins County, Texas, that in arriving at the correot min¶mm

### ,589

Honorable Bxer Thursmd, PBm 

### 4

to be paid omnty offioers uader ths Salaq Bill that the Court should oonsldor the saouat of fees earned a& unoolleoted, 8s voll as fees oollooted for the year 1935, TN8 oplnloa further held that **an** ox a??loZo salary paid to the o??loe~ for the year 1935 should be oomldeti io OFFLV~Qet the a-eat minlmm to be **gaid** suoh offioer.

In risv QS the forsgobg pa sre respeotfully advfssti t.hst it is the **apinioa of**  **this** department thst the msxlmum **sslary** fcr the year 1935, osnnot uoeed the Bumof 

### $3,000.00 uoh. of the county o??lolal~ of Mnveriok County, named ln Artlols 

### 39lr, rninlmum

oalarj of the oountf o??loial~ of said oounty oannot be less than the total **sum** earned **as** ocuspensation by said offioers in their said o??Loial oapaoities for the fiscal year of 1935. Stated differently, the **Coum1I88ioaer8~** Court of said oounty **is** authorized by Seotlao 15, Artiole 3912e, to fix the salaries of eoci~ of the ocwty o??loi~l~ St not less thsn the total **sum urnsd**  as oompensatlon by esoh of said officers in their said ofriolal capacities for the fiscal ysar 1935 and not mm than the msximum elloved euoh o??lcer~ **uader** lavs eXLstUg August 24, 

### 1935.

Acoordlzig to the lnfomstion oontained In your letter, It is apparent that 811 of the oounty o??lol8l8 OS Msmrlok County, except the Couty Attorney,rsoeivo the msximups salaries l

llaved by 1~ **for** their affloial servioer. Ye assume frcis ths faots stated in your lettor that the salary of the Couaty Attoraey **is** not less then the total sumearned as ocmpensatfoa by said offloer in hfa said offioial oapnolty **for** the fSsoa1 yea2 o? 1935, but **18** not aa muohas the maximum salary all0m-l hy lav in **Hsvorlok** County.
It is our opinlon that 1-t t:, wholly vlthln the disoretion of the **Commissioaers~** Court in detemnlning **aad** fixing the salaries of oounty o??loSal~ to detrrmip, the amount of Oompensatl~a for each of salti oouaty offioials provided the sala- of eaoh county offioial shsll not ha less than the total sum earned **as oompensatloa**  by Bald officer in his said offioial capaooity for the flsoal year 1335, and not more than the praxiuium alloved suoh 

### o??loer **under** lava edsting August 

### 24, 1935. The Conmissfoaers 1 Court **is** not required to fix the salaries of the ooumty o??loialB **St** the **BB~B** amount, but as heretofaFe stated, It is vholly vithla their dlsoretion to deterr~rine and fix the salary of eaoh of the said oounty o??lolal~at not less than tho minimum 

### normore thsn the maxl~~um, and that there Is CO cjisorlmination

vlMir the salaries of suoh 00Unt orfiaials are <etem:ingd end fixed although some oounty offlcia 9a receive a ,veator salary than mothers, proplded, of **oourse~** the salaries 0fHonorable Roger Thurmond, Page 

### 5

fiuohoounty o??lolalB are not less than the total sum earned as oompensation 

### 8y the said **offioers** 

### in their said o??io~aloapaoltiesfor the flsoal

### year1935,aad 

### not smre than the MX~~NJUallowed suoh offl~ers **under** 

### laws existing August 

### 24, 1935.

YOWB

### very truly
ATTORHBY 

### OBW OF TJUAB
ByWdArdOll WilliSlE

ASBlStiant AW:fo