OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Roger Thurmond 

Dlstrlot Attorney 

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 

sta tutea m, a de l mlla 8a 

ìTh s C~@ @ Ia l8r 8í c o vr t in 0wa tto 8 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 o mp tma aor tlll oo o ma t a M o a o la offt lo Qsro a 

8 sr l8rb y a r frme . c ~881 -* c o wt la 088or b 

Enlahooutltloslirhee~mlt~me,a~lt rhrllk 

its dutt, to tlx the ralsrlor of C~&mlnal snOtriot 

88.8 ausb or- : 

oompenaatioabyraid offioerbhlr said 

Paolty ror the M0w1 S*rr or 1935 8sd aot O=t#i%r 1 

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 populatiacr or 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 188 1 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-y 18 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 sum vhloh 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 foregobig provisions of Seotlon 15 of Art1010 39120 are rppllCable to said county. 

The sela~4es of the county osrioiaie 0r Msverlolr must be 

determined a& 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 OS vhether 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~Q et 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 Bum of $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 sum earned as ocmpensatfoa by said offloer in hfa 

said offioial oapnolty for the fSsoa1 yea2 o? 1935, but 18 not aa 

muoh as 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 nor more 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 9 a receive a 

,veator salary than mothers, proplded, of oourse~ the salaries 0f 
Honorable Roger Thurmond, Page 5 

fiuoh oounty o??lolalB are not less than the total sum earned as 

oompensation 8y the said offioers in their said o??io~al oapaolties for the flsoal year 1935, aad not smre than the MX~~NJU allowed suoh offl~ers under laws existing August 24, 1935. 

YOWB very truly 

ATTORHBY OBW OF TJUAB 

ByWdArdOll WilliSlE 

ASBlStiant 

AW:fo