AS 

February 12, 1952 

Ron. Robert M. Allen Opinion Ro. V-1404 

County Attorney 

Rusk County Re: Authority of the CommlsHenderson, Texas sioners' Court to pay a 

bounty for the destruction of wild foxes in 

Rear Sir: Rusk County. 

You have requested an opinion on the following question: 

n 

. . . whether or not the Commlssloners’ 

Court of Rusk County can legally offer and 

pay a bounty for the destruction of wild fox 

and the amount of such bounty that can legally 

be paid." 

You state in your request that Rusk County 

now has a large number of rabid wild foxes which are 

causing considerable damage and therefore the commissioners' court has been requested to offer and pay a 

bounty for the destruction of wilc¶ foxes If such 

bounty can be paid legally. 

The decisions of the Texas courts have repeatec¶ly held that the commissioners' court is a court 

of limited jurisdiction and has only such powers as are 

conferred upon it, either by express terms or by necessary implication, by the statutes and Constitution of 

this State. Chlldress County V. State, 127 Tex. 343, 

92 S.W.2d 1011 (1936); Von Rosenberg v. Lovett, 173 

S.W. 508 (Tex. Civ. App; 1915 f) 

Hall, 280 S.W. 289 (Tex. Civ.'A~f;P"&~~)~ irt. 

VXKS. 

@-=-? 235 

Article 192b, V.C.S., pertaining to the 

destruction of animals because of their predatory 

nature is not applicable under the facts contained 

in your request. 

Section 1 of Article IgOh, V.C.S., provides: 
Hon, Robert M. Allen, page 2 (V-1404) 

"From and after the effective date 

of this Act all County Commissioners Courts 

throughout the State of Texas may 

P 

ay a 

bounty not to exceed Five Dollars $5) out 

of the General Fund of the County for the 

killing of all Jaguar, Cougar, Ocelot, 

Jaguarondi, Bob Cat, Gray Wolf, Red Wolf, 

Florida Wolf, Coyote, Javelina and Rattlesnake. The Commissioners Courts shall have 

authority to determine what animals are 

predatory wltNn said County and said Court 

may further determine eligibility of persons 

to whom bountFes will be paid." 

Article lgOh, authorizing the commissioners' 

courts to -&y bounties for killing certain wild anlmals, does not include wild fox. 

It Is stated in 39 Tex. Jur. 188-189, Statutes, Sec. 100: 

"The maxim Expresslo unius eat exclusio 

alterlus (the expression of one thing is exclusive of another) is said to be a logical, 

sensible and sound rule of construction; and 

It has been frequently applied in the construction of statutes as well as in the interpretation of other documents. The maxim slgnlfies that the express mention or enumeration 

of one person, thing, consequence or class Is 

tantamount to an express exclusion of all 

others. . n ." 

Since Article 1gOh enumerates the animals 

on which a bounty may be paid, bounties may not be 

paid on the killing of animals not enumerated. 

Article 1901, V.C.S., provides: 

"Section 1. It shall be the duty of 

the State Health Officer to determine and 

define the boundaries of all areas of the 

State in which foxes or other wild animals 

infected with rabies exist in sufficient 

numbers to be a menace to the health of 

that area. Such determinations shall be 

based upon a finding of fact by the State 

Health Officer; providing further that the 
Hon. Robert M. Allen, page 3 (V-1404) 

State Health Officer shall cause to be 

published in a newspaper within each county within the defined area that a bounty 

exists in the county concerned. 

"Sec. 2. When the State Health Officer finds that the health of such area 

Is menaced by rabies because of rabid foxes 

or other wild animals, and defines the area 

where such menace exists, he shall pay a 

bounty of Two Dollars ($2) for each and 

every fox or other wild animal destroyed 

in the defined area. For purpose of such 

payments the Health Officer shall have the 

power to require such evidence as proof of 

the destruction of a fox or other wild anFma1 as he shall deem necessary. 

"Sec. 3. When the number of rabid 

foxes or other wild animals in any defined 

area is reduced to the extent that the destruatlon of such foxes or other wild anlmals is no longer necessary then the State 

Health Officer shall cease payment of the 

bounties, and shall serve notice to the public in the area concerned through publlcation in at least one (1) newspaper In each 

county concerned." 

This Article authorized the payment of a 

bounty by the State Health Officer on wild foxes in 

rabid-infected areas. However, it is noted that no 

provision authorizes the payment of such a bounty by 

the county. 

We know of no law applicable to Rusk County which authorizes the payment of a bounty by the 

county for the killing of wild foxes. Therefore, we 

agree with you that the commissioners' court cannot 

expend county money for the payment of such bounty. 

STJMMARY 

The Legislature has not authorized 

the commlssloners' court of Rusk County 

to pay a bounty for the destruction of 
. . . . 

Hon. Robert M. Allen, page 4 (V-1404) 

rabid wild foxes. Only the Stat6 Health 

Officer is authorized to pay a bounty of 

this nature in a rabies Infected area. 

Article 1901, V.C.S. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

PRICE DANIEL~ 

Attorney General 

Ed. Jacobson 

Reviewing Assistant 

Charles Da Mathews 

First Assistant 

JRzmh