AS

February 12, 1952

Ron. Robert M. Allen Opinion Ro. V-1404 CountyAttorney 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 ofwild fox and the amount of such bounty that can legally be paid."
You state in your request thatRusk County now has a largenumber of rabid wild foxeswhich are causing considerabledamage and therefore the commissioners' courthas 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 courtshave repeatec¶ly

held that the commissioners'court is a court of limited jurisdictionand has only suchpowers as are conferredupon it, either by express terms or by necessary implication,by the statutes and Constitution of this State. Chlldress County V. State, 127Tex. 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 ofArticle IgOh,V.C.S., provides:Hon, Robert M. Allen, page 2 (V-1404)

"From and after the effectivedate of thisAct all County CommissionersCourts throughout the State ofTexas may Pay 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, FloridaWolf, Coyote, Javelina and Rattlesnake. The CommissionersCourts shall have authority to determinewhat animals are predatorywltNn said County and said Court may further determine eligibility of persons to whom bountFeswill be paid." Article lgOh, authorizing the commissioners' courts to -&y bounties for killing certainwild anlmals, does not includewild fox.

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

"Themaxim 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 statutesas well as in the interpretation of other documents. The maxim slgnlfies that the expressmention or enumeration of oneperson, thing, consequence or class Is tantamount to an express exclusion of all others.

. n ." SinceArticle 1gOh enumerates the animals onwhich a bountymay be paid, bountiesmay not be paid on the killing of animals not enumerated.

Article 1901,V.C.S., provides: "Section 1. It shallbe the duty of the State Health Officer to determineand define the boundaries of all areas of the State in which foxes or otherwild animals infectedwith rabies exist in sufficient numbers tobe a menace to thehealth of that area. Such determinations shall be based upon a finding of fact by the State Health Officer;providing further that theHon. 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 suchmenace exists,he shall pay a bounty ofTwo Dollars ($2) for each and every fox or otherwild animal destroyed in the defined area. For purpose of such payments the Health Officer shallhave the power to require such evidence as proof of the destruction of a fox or otherwild anFma1 as he shall deem necessary. "Sec. 3. When the number of rabid foxes or otherwild animals in any defined area is reduced to the extent that the destruatlon of such foxes or otherwild anlmals is no longernecessary then the State Health Officer shall ceasepayment of the bounties, and shall serve notice to the public in the area concerned throughpubllcation 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 thatno provision authorizes the payment of such a bounty by the county.

We know ofno 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 countymoney for the payment of such bounty.

STJMMARY The Legislaturehas 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. CountyAffairs Division PRICE DANIEL~ Attorney General

Ed.Jacobson ReviewingAssistant Charles Da Mathews First Assistant JRzmh