OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 06NERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Eworablo Charles A. Toeoh, pa&e P 

in aoeordwos with II. 8. 80. 958, Aote of the 

46th Legislature, Regular Seeelon, pcrge 144 

(Arti 1666 or Vernon’e knotstad St8tUtW3, 

Vol. 3, 1940 Aooumulatire Pocket Rixt), the 

County Auditor, ae Budget Witoer, prepared, 

and the ComWeeIonere’ Court after publio hearing, duly adopted a budget of e.ll revenues and 

expfmdlturea r0r the oalwidar ~sap 1941. In 

this odoptad b. 

q 

et, the eaount budgeted for 

salaries in the ax Aeeeeeor a Colle~tor’e orii06 VM baned 0~ the number 0r 66puti68 it 

vae eetlmated would be required to admlnleter 

thotu laws as the7 exletod in3 

snd the ohang68 in thb above lave 

yuarY# 1941, 

Aebendm6nt 

0r Certirioat6 0r Title h8t and oeudbue Tar; 

Bnl) lmre not axltlolpated, oithelr in reepeot 

to the rdditlonel dutiee the Aeeeeeor now eontends are requfxwd or him by ewh laws nor was 

the additional booma to the County alioved w 

euoh 8emndewnt and nev lax antlolpated and 

bud@ed. Itallae Oounty, at this tleie, does 

not have eurrloieAt balance 0r unapproprlrtsd 

ruude whfoh me availabPs r0r allooation to 

the 8alary Aooount or the Tu Aeeeeeor a Colleotor~e omoe. It till, thererore, be4 neo- 

‘8eeary is 0rd.r to oompl7 *ith the NQueet or 

the Aeeeeeor Ib QollQotor $0~ Mdltional &ppropriatione to hLe 8aly Aeoount to enable h&a 

to propor a4eanbtor the80 lexe, for th6 1941 

~&udget or X&Dar County to be amended to tioreaw the budget at least #3500.00. It 18 

rewonable to aeeume that the @hangor In tbs 

Gertlfioat6 or Title Lsv and the Autolwm.ls 

Sales Tar Lsw till furnish to the County at 

least $3500.00 0r unantioiprted end unapproprinted rtwenw. 

“The Comu&eelonsre* Court hae l.nd%oated 

its egrecnaent with the TAX Aeeeeeor IL Collrotor 

in his oontentlon that this reoeatlg enatsted legislation by the 47th Lqjielatwe, plaeee additional admlnletrative burdens upon Me Depertment, whioh would PrsLb it neoeee ror h&m to 

have additional deputies to ruffle -I ently administer these two new laws and the Cowt is vtiling 
lbmorable Charles A. Toeoh, pnge 3 

to grrnt his reque8t fop the addItiona approprIatIon 0r $3500.00, inaeuuoh 88 it appbare 

thrt tha County vIU. obtain at last this muoh 

addItIonal and unapproprleted revenue provided 

the 3941 au&et urn be legally amended to inorbaee the 8-e by the requested and required 

auounti . 

*ft vould appear Srom the prorIeIcme or 

those two new emetod laws that It ve8 the intontion or the L8gIalatura to allov the oounti48 adminietoaiag tha lwe, a portion 0r the 

tame aeeereed, tbvitt 254 ror l rah oortirioate of title Issued and 2$ of the 1s l 8.lee tax 

aeeaeeed, for admInIstrative, Audi not pennor, 

j-vo~~~,~~,:=--~~~ the -gmwnt of the Tax 

“T shall s~eelate yoour opInion on the 

r0iiowing I 

‘%an the 1941 Dallas County Budget be 

amended for the prwpo8ee urd tu%leP the airarnetamee abovo outlined?" 

8inoo rerelring JOPC reqwet md during the oourse 

of ow dellber8tlon On the pFOpO8%t%On8 therein bxpreeead, Vo 

have waeived a related mqueet from Hopar8ble H. Pat Mwarde, 

OlvIl Dirt~lot Attorney, oi Dallas Qounty, asking fop our oplnion on 60~ related questIon aonoernlng the uwmdmmt or the 

Sbllaa County Budget. We hare taken the Ubart~, 8t his muggeetfon, to auevtw the questions propound+ in both requests, in 

this opinion. 

we quote rrou Mr. BUwwde~ raqueett 

"(1) CM the Oamuiealonerel Gourt 0r 

Dallas County aabnd the 1941 budgSst duly &opted in Sa~uary, 1941, in oomplianoe vlth lots 

or the 46th L8gIrlcture Regular 8eeeI(Ip, House 

Bill No. 958, ohapter 144, by pamsIng an order 

at thIe tiste redualng the ampat fi;Ied by said 
Iionorable Charles A. Torah, page 4 

budget r0r poynreat 0r ealerIee to 8eeIet8nte 

In the Tax Colleetorlr 0rriO0, the n8eoa ror 

euuh reduotloa beiag the elIminatlon or the 

Boat to the County or the 8dainIetr8tioa or the 

Certirioate or Title Law as aWaded by House 

Bill lo, 205, Aat of the 47th Legielaturo, Regulu fbeeIoa? 

“(2) HotvIthetaa~ the r-t thab there 

Is no epraee provision la the Uopeeaid budget 1aW 8UthorISing emb~goao OxpoadItume 

eueh ae is round in Artiale ii 890 0r Vernon~e 

Sales Rbvlesd fJt&tutee (Aate of 1931, 42ad lagIelature, page 339, eh8pter 206, par. l2), does 

the Uoem18eloabret Court 0r D&lam County have 

suthorlt7 to 6teend Its adopted budget b7 iao r ea eithb a$ l pbndltune of the oouaty In 8u 

8mouat not ezoeeding the 8atIalpated avenue, 

‘in oaee 0r gr8vO publio a*oeeeIt7 to m6et unwual and uafore8oea oontlltlone whI8h aould 

not, b7 reaeoa8bl7 diligent thought 8nd attention, have been Iaoluded in the wi@.aal budge”) 

‘(3) Xnammh as it appOe8 frae the 3930 

LqIelature, then v8e oaly one eountg 

State, to-vit, 38rrie Qouaty, uhlah had a gulatloa or 350,000 or more, 8nd In8gnuoh a8 It 

appoare fiwm the 1940 Fedoral ooaeue that there 

8re ~01 oalg tvo sounties In the State, to-wit, 

Hard8 aud Dallas County, uhIcvh have a population Ia exo@ee or 350,000 and lseawoh u another 

Federal oeaew will not be taken until 1950, 18 

said Act unwaetItutional boauee It applies 8 

olaeeIfIaatloa far legIelatIve purposes baaed 

entirely on the populetioa of the oouatIee?" 

Awording to the last Federal hneue, Dauae county 

has 8 population 0r 398,049 Iahabitante. From 

r 

ur requests 

It Is apparent that Dsllae County A.8 operating te budgeting 

or oounty rInanoee under 11. B. 958, Ache 46th LqsIeloture, Regular Seeeioa. It Is oleer that the A&t mcmtioaed w8e dbelgaed 
Hoaorsble Oharlee A. Toeoh, p8@ 5 

aad inteaded to regulste the budgetlag of oouaty fIn8nees In 

all couatIee having 8 populetion in exoeee 0r 350,000 iah8bltads aooordlng to the last preoeding Federal Coaeue. The 

budget l&v, reterred to, makes the County Auditor the budget 

otricer, vhIle under the %nIform Budget L~v," the County Judge 

is budget ofrioer ror the aounty. The portiaeat provieloae 

or Howe Bill 958, bm&ng upon the ammdmeat or ohaaga in 

the budget, after It hem been fnally 8pproved 8ad adopted 

by the Gomieeioaere~ Court, 8m 88 ioU.ovet 

"Upon fIa81 approv8l or the budget by the 

CoueAeeIoaere~ Court a oopy of such budget as 

approved eh8l.l be flied vIth the County Auditor, 

the Clerk ot the Court and the St&to Auditor. 

end no uwwllture of the funds or the oountg 

sheAl be thoreefter mede erosxst Ia strict oomplisncs with said budnet. Said oourt may upon 

propea applioatioa trmehr an exietisn budget 

eumlue during the yo8r to a b-et of UJce l&ad 

and mad but ao euoh tr8aerer ehall in 

thetotllloith*budsot.. . . 

WF8UO 

*Upoa the adoption of 8ny saneral or epeoial budgot ae homiabeioro provided 8ad its 

oertifioatloa, the Oouaty AudItox ot e8oh Oouaty 

thereupon eheL1 open ea 4pproppIatlon aoaount 

ror 08ch nrln bwotod or epeolal budgeted item 

therein aad it shall be his duty to ohaqo all 

purohaea orders OP requieition6, watrwte, end 

8818x-y and labor bllovaaoee to add appopriatioae. l . . The amount set pride Ia 8ny budget for 8ay purohree order or reQuIeition, eoatrbot, apeoial ptwpoee OF SelaPy and 18bor 8ocount eh8ll not be 8~8118b30 r0r 8llooatIoa ror 

8ny other purpose un.leee an unexpeadetl b8leaoe 

remaine in the l ooouat ai‘tsr fUll dIecharge of 

the obligation or ualeee the requieitlon, oontrent, or alloo8tioa has been oeuoelled Ia 

writing by the CoemIeeIoaoret Court or County 

or?Iiosr for a valid rb8ecm." 

“The County Auditor shall meke to the CornmieeionePe~ Court not lees than monthly 8 oamflete 

report ehorIag the fIaan~Ibl oonditioa of the 

oouaty. . . . The PepOPt &lb= tWtlt8iA 8 Omlete 
Honorable Char188 A. Toeoh, page 6 

statement or the balanoee on h8nd at the beglauIng and aloes of’ the math 8ad the 8ggregate FeCeipte to &ad ~egsrte dieburesmeate 

fmm e&ah fua$ the traaeiere to end from each 

rti, . . . . 

Se&ion 2 of the Aat repeals a31 laws or parts OS 

laws Ia coafliat vlth the Aot. 

Ia 80aelder~g~hf ~~eetioae submitted b7 you parts 

of the “Uaifcm B 

3 

being II. B. lo. 768 &te had 

Legislature, 1931, 0&hr’808810n, we 339, aa& oamied 86 

Artlule 869-a ol Vernon@8 Civil St&tutor, should be ooaeidered. The “Uaiform Budget law* is a general budget l8v a lI- 

@able to 8ll publlo funds, with oae sxoeptloa. Seation 92 0r 

the A& reads In part as followsr 

“Frovldsd, homvor, ihat la all 6ouatIee 

0r this state ooataining a population In ox0088 0r three hundred flitg thousand (350,000), 

88oording to th8 l8et p*ewdIng United Btatee 

Census, the provieione heroor eh8ll aot apply 

to the mlcing or such oouuty budgets, 8ad In 

euah oouutIe8 8ll Iksttere pert8Iaing to the 

gtcr;y budget 8h8ll be go~eraed by OsIeting 

. 

The “erietiug lav” referred to above 18 Artl6ls 1666, Rev&awl 

;;z;rSt8tute8, 1925, vhioh v8e ea88ted In 1905 8ad vhioh pro- 

*libe a ll p r ep a am n l etinrte of 8ll the 

revbawe and expenses au6 annually submit it 

to the Coeenieeloaere~ Court, vhI& Court eheU 

omdully a&e a budget of 8ll approprIatIoae 

to be set aside ior the YaFioue exp4neee Or 

the county govemmeat Ia each branch and departnieat. Ii41 ahtall open an aeoouat with eaah 

appropriation in said budget, end all wamxmte 

dmvn against same eh811 be entered to 88Id 

aooouat . Be shall oarsfully keep 8u oveFeight 

or same to moo that the expenses of any dep8rtmeat do not exoeed said budpt 8ppropri8tIone, 
Honorable Charlee A. Toroh, pas. 7 

and keep laald Court advlred of the oondltlona 

of raid 8ppl-Opl'i8tiOlU aOOOUnt.8 fFOlU time to 

time." 

The officer referred to in raid Art1019 1666, aupra, la tJs 

County Auditor of the County. 

The “uniform Budget Xav’ further provider in kotlon 

12 thereof, an follow I 

“When the budget har been finally rpproved by the Cdsrionerr' Court, the budget, aa approved, by the Court, 8hal.l be flled 

tith the olerk of the oouaty oourt, aud taxer 

levied only in aooordanoe therevlth, and no 

expenditure of the fuuda of the Oouuty rhall 

thereafter be made exospt in rtrlot oompl2ianae 

rith the budget 81 adopted by the Court. Ikoept 

that emergenoy expendlturer, in 0880 of pave 

pub110 neoerritj, to meet unurual and unforuseen condition8 vhibh oould not, by res#c&ably 

diligent thought aud attention, have been ineluded in the original budget may froa time 

to time be authorlsed by the 6aurt 68 amendments to the orlgln8l budget. Ih rll ouem 

vhsre mash awndmentr to the original budget 

18 tie, a oopy of the order of the Court 

amnding the budget &all bo tile13 with the 

Clark of the Court emi ottaahed to tha budget 

orlglnally adoptedr” 

Beotion 00-e of the ‘coniform Budget Lsr” providm 

in part aa follovrr 

*Hothlq oantalned in thlr Aot ahall be 

conetrued 88 preoluding the Leglalature frcm 

maklng eha,~$os ln the budgot for atate purpoaea or prevent the County Cfmmifmionerr* 

Court from &u&lug ohazqea ln the budget for 

oounty purpooer. . . . 

It oan be men from a study of Xiouae Bill 958, 8aprs, 

hereiaaiter referred tb &II the “8pe0lal Budget Ilv,’ that it 

doea not cont8l.n the *emer&?noy” featurer of the “Unifomu mget tav” providing apeoifloally::Jor the aanmdment of the budget under certain oiroum8trrtoeo. 
783 

. 

Honorable Charler A. Tosoh, page 8 

The “Speolal Budget I&v” obviously prwldee for the 

creation and eetabliehment of a “balanoe rheet” of e&.ielpated 

revenue and probable expenaee of the oounty. Thl.0 duty hae 

been lmpoeed by this Act upon the County Auditor ae dietingulshed from the “Uniform Budget Lav” which impoese the eeme 

duty upon the County Judge. 

The Mlmouri Supreme Court in Waver v. Puroell, 

85 8. W. (2d) 543, in disourrlng the nature of a budget #rid: 

"We mwt take judlolel kuovledge of the 

faot that th6 vord budget’ ha8 a veil-reoognlaed goner81 mesalng. At applied to overnmemte or governnental untts, a @budget 8 18 a 

plan or method by means of vhloh the expenditurer and wvanuee are 80 ooiktrolled for a 

definite period, by some budget- authority, 

a8 to effeot a bahnoe brtveea l.neome and sxpenditurer . Of ooureq budget lax8 may differ 

matorlally in their detalle, but the eeeentldl 

and oharaeterletla feature8 of a budget lw 

are an etated,” 

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Wsrit Vi~gfnia in 

the aaee of Appalaehin Eleotria Powr Co. vI City of Euntington, 177 8. E. 431, maid: 

“A budget ir wually nothing more than a 

balanoe sheet of ertlmated rwelptr fmd efpesldlturee,. l . We thtnk the dlffersnoe betvwn a budget aud funda legally at the 61~ 

poenl of a fleoal body 18 too apparent to retu¶-g :xtended dieoussloa or oltation of author- 

. 

Ao oaeee have been found eonatrulng the apeoial budget Iav. There are a few Texae oaeee conetruing the “Unlfomn 

Budget Lad vhleh ve deelre to 4leouee. 

The Clrouit Court of Appeele, Fifth Clrouit, iu the 

oaee of Southland Toe Co. v. City of Temple, 100 Fed. (Qd) &5, 

+o paering on portlone of the vniform B-et Zpv applioable to 

oittee and in holding that au attampted payment for the we of 

a storeroom for the protection of kuventorler used In oonneotion vith the operation of the bity vater and severage department by the oitg, crould not be lovfully paid, in tha, abrenoe of 

such an item being set qp in thri budget,ekidr 
Honorable Charlae A, Toeoh, page 9 

“The olty had a bud@. It did not inolude the purohaee of thle property or any 

etorehouee. It took up all current revenwe 

beoauee no taxes Gould be levied exoept S.n aaoordanw vlth the budget. The olty oould not 

tranefer funde and apply them to a nev objeot 

not mentioned in the budget, there being no 

muergeru3y. 

%lkerlee subdlvlelon 20 of the Budget 

LBv, authoriring changes in the budget, muet 

refer to ohan@e vlth3.n the objeote oovered 

by the budget, baoawe if nev matter8 oould 

ba added to the budget, then the amarfrenq 

provielon vould eorve no purpoe4.c 

Our Commieelon of Apperle in the oaee of Baxar County, 

4t al v. Xatley, et al, 150 S. W. (2d) 980, had oooaelon to vrlte 

011 the Tour Wiform Budget Lav involving the aotlon of the Commlerlonere~ Court of Baxar CountiT amending it8 budget, under 

the omrgenoy feature, to tranefer a budgeted item for oleotlon 

oxpawee to the rantal of voting mea. Pertlnant exoarpte 

from the oourt’e oplnlon are; 

“It la apparent from the Aat requlrisg the 

Court to adopt an annual budgot for darrylng 

on the oounty*e bwlwea that the Laglelatura 

reoognleod aemo latitude must be. allouod, mlthin the reetrletlone lmpoeed with reepeot to 

th4 mode of oparatlon, to make the bud@ plan 

vorkable: and that a budget ae OrlglnallP eMa 

vu adopted3 baeaueo of elpendlturee neoeeeltatod br *unueu&l and unforoee4n oonditlone 

whloh oouZd not by roaeonably &&lQent thought 

and attention hwr4 bean inoluded ln the original budget,’ ti&bt *from M.ma to tlma,’ ba 

amended to meat ewb morgonoy axpenditurae 

in aaoo OS Qravo publie neooeeity.w Art. 689-g, 

thou. 11 and 20, eqra. ‘The Coxmlee¶.bneref 

Court, having authority to adopt voting maehinee 

and having done eo, had $8 broad disoretion to 

aooomplleh the pwpoee intended,’ so long ae it 

observed the oonatltutlonal and etatutor llmitaupon It. Dodeon v, Hare hat 1, 118 
limorable Ohmlee A. Toeoh, pwe 10 

'If no itom had been met up o~l&nallg 

to meet the exp4nee of eleatlone and the slaendemnt had #ought to met up and provide for a nev 

budget objeat, another question vould b4 prorented, Southern I04 Co. v. Oity of Temple, 100 

led. (26) 825. Inthatoaee it18 h4ld thatunder the budgst lav 'the oSty oould not trsrufer 

fund8 and apply them to a MV objoet not mmtlon4d ln the budget.~ . . . Whether thle holding 18 oorrmt 18 not neooeeary to be dot4re&nod in the present oue, elnoe It appoare 

from th4 r46ltale of th4 ordoce 4nd crautraot 

ret out abm4 that eufflol4nt iunde v4ro Wallable under the tax 14vy mad4 on the basic of 

t&o orlglnal bud@, to pay the m&al 44m44 

of voting euohln48. 

(I While the t8rmo of the budget lar 

~4 ta'bi kpU4d vlth etrlotly, eu4h OODIpll.an44 i8 rubJ6ot by 4p44lflo pmmkeion to the 

l x44ptlondthr4ep4otto th4 om4rg4na~4xp4ndltur48, ewh u dlealoeed abwa.m 

Th4 goneral povere of the Comle*lon4re~ OorPt are 

r 

ven in Bodeon t. Narehall (Cl+. 

vrit of error tUemlee4d), by JuQe % 

AS*;* g-Jy& 

I 

quoter 

"Th4 Qomiieelon4re~ Court 18 th4 cctlvo 

to that 4p46lfloally omf4rrod by the ccmetitution and et(Ltut48, Xl118 Count 

county, 90 T4x. 603, 4Q 8. W, J: 

v. Lempateae 

03, vhore a rl@t 

la thus ocmforred or obligation la 2qpoe4dd, etid 

court ham &plied authority to emrolae 8 broad 

dleoxWA,on to aam@.leh the pu.vpa848 lutozkdod. 

11 'Pox. 3ur. 565~ Olty Aatlonal Bat& v. BvelQlo 

County, (Tar. WV. App,) 26 PI. W. 7751 Pweett 

v,7B~ooe Oounty, (Tex, .W. App.) 835 dl. W. 

. 
Honorable Gharlw A. Toe&, we 11 

With thee4 p4rtinent gencrrsl provisions OS ths lav 

with nferonco to th4 budget eyetene in M v4 pr4444d to 

l xtual,no the partlouler qneetlone eubmLtt4d by 4eah of you 

aonooming the budget of Dells8 (lounty. 

We balleve the authoritiae have olearly l etablleh4d 

the proposition that a nev budget ltun m4y not b4 set up in 

th4 budgot, vhero the operetlon 18 under th4 *Unlfonn Budget 

Law," by amondmont thonto, 4xaept In oaee of an wrg4noy 

es th4reln provldod. W4 b4lleve th4 mom4 rule of lev 18 eppllaable to the epeolel budget lmr, Ii. B. 958, eupra, under 

vhlch Dellae County op6tee. It doer not prwldo for eny 

amendment of the budget for auy purjsoee after It hex b44n flaelly adopted by the Comeleelonorst Court, It does provide ioF 

thetrenefer of fUnde tithinthl, budgstuud4r oorteln oaabitlone. alnoe the Legleletur4 is pr4eumd to kmw t&a exletlng lave ad the effe;ot of their op4matlon, euoh em th4 "I&& 

ions Bu ot I,& vhlah we in fame and offoot at tbs tlmo 

H. B. 95 % vae 4naot4d, r, believe by ~1104tton, in th4 ab- 

#once of any provision providln$ for en aem&mt to th4 budg4tev4nuud4r uemenay aondltlone, ltemethave b44n th4 

l*glelatlv4 lut4ntlon thet the budget ln oouuti48 hnv* 350,900 

Snhabltante ornor ehouldnot b4 wwnded. 

We do not bollev4, elnuo th4 Uniform Bu@et Lav oxpr4eely ex4mpte frae its tome ootmtlee h4vlng a populetlon 

la oxooee of 350,000 lnbabltente, thet it 0~1 be looked to for 

l uthorlty to authorlee th4 eemndmnt of .th4 bwQet in 44untiee 

having eser4 thau 350,000 inhabiter&e. 

We rsallee th4 effeot of our oopQluelan on this emtter, howvor, thle lx a emttor to bo dlled to i2m 4tt4ntlan 

of the L4glelatur4 if amy hardehlp la plao4d upon the edmlnletretlon of oounty l ffelre. 

You are, th4nfon, advleod thet th4 qu4etids Neonted by you shotid b4 am&red in the neWAtiV+ bnd thb e the 

Dallas CountyB for th4 y44r 1941 aemot b4 emxkd4d for 

the purpoeee a 

at 

ttsd by you. 

We believe under the "epealal bud& 14~” if the 

~~saionore~ Court finds a *valid r4aeo.n" oxlete to tmrmlnate oerteln ealarloe, th4n under euoh budget l&v e melleartlon oan bs made OS euah funds, within the budget, to of&or 
Hwrable Oharlee A, %oeoh, pa$e 12 

I 

budget4dlt4me ofllk4klndurd fundthrnlnooutaln4d. Uhat 

conetltutee a "wild roamon” vow d4p4nd yoan the faote in 

eaah oaeo. plu Conmieelonore~ Court lx obviously slvw: Gtlon to determlno vhat aonetltutoe a%alld reamon. 

it vould not be unwaronable to say that a Commleeloneret Court 

in a proper 48x4 oould make a bon4 fide flndlng of faot that 

by th4 operation and effeot of lav oertain plu-4.utlolpat4d oxp4n.see in the budget ar4 not loqrer n404eey to admlnleter 

th4 duties of 4n offloor, and thnxwby t4Wto th4 l w. ltr . 

Bdvarde' flret qubetlon la anev4r4d aaoordLngly. 

The eeoond q uestio l n ub mlttoby d Hr. Bdwardu ehould 

bo ansvorod in the xwgatlvo for the r o a e6nl e 2ruady dleoueeed. 

Wenovproo44dtoanev4rth4 thArdqwetloa pr484ntod by Hr. lklvarde oanoeming the wnstltutlonallty of H. B. 

958, hots 46th Lsglelaturo. 

!fh4 oaptlon of the Aot nadet 

"& Aot provldlng for a 

Yft 

et eymta in 

ooumtlee of thr44 hnndred udl f y tihms8W 

(350r000)lnhabltante oc mor4 ae l hovm by the 

laetpngediag orany~tureF4dw8lO4nwe, 

. . . . 

T%O wrgonoy pzwv%eion of WA H. E. 958, zwde: 

"The faot that pweent lrve vith mep44t to 

large 04uatl48 ar4 lnad4pwbt4, andan Zmm&la 

noooeelty exlete for the oornotl7 of this 8% 

nation oroat on 4morg4noy . . . 

In the %8&o of Charles Y. Andwren County Jtadge, 

al v. Woods, shsrlff, by th4 Buprau, Court 0) F4sae, not yet 

Qt 

zqwrtod, Zudge AlLlex4nd4r sold in 44netruing a l lmilu Aott 

*It vlll be notlood that tbr SW&t 84ntenoo 

of &#otlon 4 of the ALot under oaneidsratl4n provldoer 

**The provlelone of this Act #hall apply 

to all 4opnt148 fn Ws State having a popula- 
Honorable Charlee A. Tomah, page 13 

tlon of more than oiw hundred and tventy-five 

thourand (125,000) aooordlng to the paoedIng 

Federal Ceruua.” 

“If thIa vere the only 1lmItation on the 

applloatlon of the AQt, Ita vaUdIty oauld be 

awiW.ned as a general lav on the ground that 

the olaarIflo&tIon la broad eno* to Inelude 

a l ubatanticrl aleaa and the aeaaarftp tar a 

olaaaIfIoatIon on the baa18 aaplo d rema to 

bear some real and iaIr relatIoa F o the aubj6ot of the 1egInlatIon. Clark f. FMey, 

OomptwXi.er, 93 Tex. 178." 

h the 0880 0f m.xm!, 0t ~rl V. c0my 0r Al -0, 

et al, by the Bupreme Court of Toma, not yet reported, Judga 

Aleder had another bra&et lav under oonaIderatIaa. In 

diaouaaing the oonatItutIonalItp ai the Aot he aaId 

“In other worda, there muat bo a aubataut&al muon far the olaaaitiacrtian. It murt 

not be a mere #bItmr~ dovIa@ resorted to for 

the purpose OS giving what la, in fad, a local 

lav the apprranoe 0r a general law.” (crltlng 

l ever aoaa*a), l 

*A# raid In Leo na rV* d R o a d a nd lulntananoe 

Blatriot Ho. 1, 187 Ark. 599, 61 8.U. (ftd) 708 

“Vhe rule la that a alaaaIftoatlon oannot be adapted arbftrsrily upon a ground uhIah 

haa no r0undstiOn in differeme 0r altuatien 

or airaumetanaer of the muulalpal.ltlea plaaed 

in the different olaaaea. Tham munt be aoam 

reasonable relation betveen the l lturrtlnn 0r 

muntoipalItie8 alaaalrfed sad the purporerr snd 

objeot to be attained. There muat be aasrsthing 

* l uhIoh In some roaaonable degree moounta 

r0r the dIvIaIen Into alaarrea.’ 

We zkre therefore confronted with the preptmItion 

of vhethem or not the olaaaIfIoatlern In Ii, B. 958, mpra, la 

baaed upon some real and felx rolatlen to the wbjeat of the 
Honorable Uharles A. Tosoh, page 18 

1egIalatIon and whether or not the claaalfIoatIon Is broad 

enough to Inoluda a aubatantlal claaa. 

Perence between the "Uniform Budget Lau' 

!the moat atrlking dirand tha budget law 

applloable to countlea having a population of 350,000 Inhabltanta or man la the fsot th& tha Count,~ AutStor, an oifker 

appointed by the Diatrlot Judgea, and themfora a non-el6ative 

ofricer, la made the budget offloer to work tap tha budgota for 

such oountIea. Suahaprogrtun~ould l welybe aaldtobo 

vholeaapae. Ordinarily L man qualiiied under the lev to be a 

Gounty Auditor la a MIA vith ooaa%derable wpml#nae and brainIng inthe adminIrtratI~onof SInanoial affaIra. us twnkthat 

thIamie;atbe aaldto constitute a auffloIeatraaaoawhythe 

Legialattwa ‘aav fit to give this offloer addItiona duties to 

perform aa the budgetary officer of the oountlea affeoted aboo 

the large oountlea have a much laqfer amount or budneaa to 

perfona and poaalbly harder flnanoIal oondltlona to aol.ve. Xt 

vI,Jl be notlcred also that the Loglalatnx-0 found that the oxiatzmz; governing budgeting ven net adequate ror the larga 

. Although then 18 scam diifhWltyind&ormialag the 

real baa18 for auoh a olaaaifloation out of and from tlm Vnlfora! 

wet La and the nooeaaity for auoh a kind or olaaalf'ioaticm 

ve think the rule imnounoed in the aam of Wood v. Harra &dependent School DIatrIot (Clv. App.) X.23 8). W. (Zd) 429, IB l p - 

pliaable Fran whIoh r, @u&e: 

We noognim the prlwipl* that ii the question of the naaenablen*aa of the olamWb3atian 

VOM debatable, the $ldgamnt 0r th* j;sgialatun 

veuld be f'iarl, but rr ?aq mot elaae cur ma to 

what is olear to all -2: 

~'-?m the reaaona dlaouaaed, va ace of the.opiaion that 

House Bill 958, aupra, ia oonatitutienal, 

we trust 

Inqulrlea . 

that in thin mamae% vo have hlly anavered 

Youra veqtruly