August 16, 1951 

Hon. W. A. Eedden Opinion Ho. V-1238 

County Aftomey 

Peooe county Be: Authority or the oomFort StooktOn, Torea mlEiaionera’ oourt to 

cell en eleotion to 

levy a tax tar edverBeer Sir: thing purpot388. 

Bererenoe is made to your requeet which made 

in pert es r0iim8: 

“The~Peoos county Chamber or’~0mm9~0 

with offioes here in Ft. Btookton, Texas 

are applying to the county asking that (LLL 

dbotion bs chlled to vote a tax or rive 

cents on $100.00 valuation for edvertialng 

pur oaem. 

f3 

I have advised the County Judge 

of this county that in my opinion there 

a no law In Texas whereby Peoos County oen 

levy such a tar. 

“Under dot or 47th Leg., ~3. 8. Bo.1082, 

Chapter 558 there ia a provision of the law 

authorizing the above tar, but under Qeo. 2 

or said Act it etatee that 8uoh tax levy la 

reetrioted to counties of more than one hundred thousand population. Peoos County doee 

not hate this population. 

“The above law was emended lee& Leglalature under Home Rule Cities Ch. 224, H. B. 

IJo. 298, but a8 I under&and it this amended 

eat only added home rule oitles.to the law, 

end that the restriction of 100,000 populetion still applied. 

=I will thank you for en opinion as to 

whether Peo~e County, being under the 100,000 

bracket gan oall an eleotion ror purpose 0r 

levying thiq 5t tax.” 
Hon. W. A. Hadden, page 2 (V-1238) 

According to the 1950 Federal census, Pecos 

County has a population or 9,939 inhabitants. 

The decisions of the Texas courts have repeatedly held that the commissioners’ court is e oourt of 

limited jurisdiction end has only such powers as are conrerred uponit, either by express terms or by necessary 

imnlioation. bs the statutes and Constitution of this 

State. Chiid~ress County v. State, 127 Tex. 343, 92 S. W. 

2d 1011 T1936); Von Rosenberg v. Lovett, 173 S. W. 508 

(Tex; Civ. App; 1915 error ref.); Ro er v. Hall 280 

S. W. 289 (Tex. Civ.‘App. 1925); Art. 2 51, V. C. 9.; -pj---, 

11 Tex. Jur. 632, Counties, Sec. 95. 

House Bill 1082, Acts 47th Leg., R. S. 1941, 

ch. 558, p* 905, (codified as Artiole 2352d), V. C. S., 

provides in part es follows: 

“Section 1. That all counties in the 

State .of Texas may appropriate from the General Fund of said counties en amount not exoeeding five (5) cents on the one hundred 

dollars assessed valuation, for the purpose 

of advertising and promoting the growth and 

development of such county; providing that 

before the Commissioners Court of any county 

may appropriate any sums for such purpose, 

the qualified taxpaying voters of said county shall, by a majorityvote of the persons 

voting at such election, authorize the County Commissioners to thereafter appropriate 

not to exceed five (5) cents on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation .0e0’ 

“Sec. 2. The authority to levy the tax 

provided for herein, shall be restricted to 

counties of more than one hundred thousand 

(100,000) population, acoording to the most 

recent United States Census.” 

House Bill 298, Acts 52nd Leg., B. S, 1951, ch. 

224, p0 359, amends Section 1 of House Bill-1082, supra, 

so as to include home rule cities. However, Section 2 

was not amended, Therefore, Article 2352d is not applicable to Pecos County, since it has a population of less 

than 100,000 inhabitants. We know of no law which authorizes a county of its population to levy a tax for 

advertising purposes, Therefore, we agree with you that 
Hon. W. A. Hedden, page 3 (V-1238) 

Peoos County is not authorized to call en election for 

the purpose of levying a five-cent tax for advertising 

purposes. 

SUMMAHY 

The Commissioners* Court of Pecos County is not authorized to call an eleotion for 

the purpose of levying a five-cent tax for 

advertising purposes. 

APPROVED: 

Everett Hutchinson 

Executive Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

Yours very truly, 

PRICE DARIEL 

Attorney General 

"ap +fg+&i< 

Assistant 

BA:awo