rtm. wiiiie O'Real 

County Auditor 

Carson County 

Panhandle, Texas 

Dear Madam: 

'Opinion Ho. o-1919 

Re: Whether the~commlssionarsl court 

is, authorized: -(l) to lend money 

to-theass-istanoe of an indivi- 

'~ dual in the nature of support of 

a pauper vithout. requir,ing the 

~Sndividual receiving the aid to 

~, sign a pauperls affidavit; (2) to 

.empley anassistant in the office 

of the county home demon&ration 

agent; ,(3) to emple a.csunty welfare worker; and (4 7 whether the 

salary of the county judge for 

acting as superintendent of pub110 1nstruction;Article 3888, 

Revised Civil Statutes, is to be 

Included in calculating the maxlmum amount that the count judge 

can drav under Article 3 85 3, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. 

In yeur letter~of Janua~ry 28, you submit four questions t&'thls department foran.opinlon thereon, and we will 

discuss them In the order in which they are presented In your 

letters. 

Question No.~,l. 'I's, It 'lawful for the 

county to lend financial assistanoe to an indlvidual Fn the nature of support of a pauper 

.vlthout requiring the Individual recelvlng 

the aid to sign '8 pauper's affidavit?' 
Mrs. Wlllle O'Neal, .Page 2, O-1919 

Article 2351, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, 

relating to powers and duties of the cornmissIoners' court, 

in part reads: 

"Each commissioners1 court shall: 

"11. Provide for the support of paupers 

and such Idiots and lunatics as cannot be admitted into the lunatic asylm, residents of 

their county, who are unable to support them-, 

selves. By the term resident as used herein, 

is meant a person who has been a bona fide 

inhabitant of the county not less than six 

months and of the state not less than one year." 

The statutes do not make any provlsion concerning 

the signing of a pauper's affidavit by one who is to receive 

support as such from a county. Whether he executes a pauperr's affidavit or does not, appears to be a matter left 

entirely within the discretion of the commlssionersl court. 

The fact that a.person executes such affldavlt would not be 

conclusive of ths question that he Is or Is not a pauper, or 

that he Is or Is not entitled to support by the county, and 

certainly Is not binding on the county. This question Is to 

be determined by the commissioners' court, and we think it 

wlthln their dlscretlon as to whether or not such affidavit 

shall be required of the person seeking county aid on such 

grounds. The statute quoted contemplates a satFsfactory determination of the question of whether a person is entitled 

to support from the county by whatever investigation or proceeding the commissionerat court chooses, not necessarily 

dependent on the person's own affidavit or statement. The 

law, of course, does not contemplate county funds paid out 

to support persons merely upon their own statement or affidavlt. 

In answer to your question WC. 1, it is therefore 

the opinion of this department that after the commissiolrers' 

court has satisfactorily determined from all reasonable 

sources that one needing support as a pauper Is a resldent 

of the county and unable to support himself, it Is within 

the authority of the court to so find and furnish such necdssary aid without requiring a pauper's affidavit executed by 

such person. 

Question No. 2. "Is it lawful for the county 

to employ an assistant in the offioe of the 

Coutity Home Demonstration Agent?' 
Mrs. Willie O'Real, Page 3, O-1919 

Article 164, Vernon's Annotated Clvil.Statutes, 

provides: 

"The Ccmmisslonersl Court of any county 

of this state is authorLzed toestablish and 

conduct co-operative demonstration work in 

Agriculture and Home Economlas in co-operation 

wlth~the Ae;i?Fcultural':and-Mechadic~l College 

of Texas, upon such terms and conditions as 

may be agreed upon by the CommLssLonersl Court 

and the Agents of the Agrl.cultural and.Meohanlcal College of Texas; gnd may employ such :._, 

means, ,and may appropriate and expend suoh~s.ums 

of money as may be neqFessary to effqctively. ' 

establish: and c~~..on:~~uc~,demhn~tr.atin~.~brk~ 

In Agriculture and Home Economics In their 

respective oounties." i 

The above statute.is an amendment of.Article 164, 

Revised CFvil Statutes; -1925, which artlole~ asp codified 

limited the expendit.tuFe offunds by a county, "'net.exceed-,~ 

ing one th,ousand 1dollars peryear, for farmers Go-operative. 

demonstration work Ln tlm county. . ." By the 1920: amendment of said article, Article 164, supra; this limitation 

was omFtted,,tionsequently, the on1 

the expenditure of oounty funds un er our present statute, 

3 1,lmltatlon placed upon 

is the constitutFona1 limitations 'of tax levies for county 

purposes. We assume that your request ,ralses' no question 

as to the legality of such amounts appropriated to meet 

the expenditures mentioned.and as setup in the county budget, but deals solely with the authority of theecommissioners~ 

court.to employ an assistant to the County Home D&monstration 

Agent and pay the salary mentloned. 

The above a&gives broad powers to the commissioners~ court and leaves t:o.'-'their judgment the question as 

to what is "necessary to effectively establish and carry on 

such demonstration work Ln Agriculture and Rome Economics 

In their respectFve counties,." That' conducting and carrying on such work as, pro.v$ded-by the Dsgislature is"county 

business" as within the contemplation of Article 5, Section 

18 of the Constitut~ion, ofTexas> has neverbeenquestloned. 

I&~answer' to your"i$~~~nd,~ue~t~lon,'you~.a~e.r~s-'~.. 

pectfully advised 'that ,it, i.s within~the: power and authority: 

of the cbmmissioners 1 court'to determFne whether or not the 

employment of an assistant to a County Home Demonstration 

Agent Is %ecessary to the conduct and aarrylng on of co;+ 
Mrs. Willie OcI?eal, Page 4, O-1919 

operative demonstration work" in the county under the provisions of Article 164, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. 

Question No. 3. "Is it lavful for the 

county to employ a welfare worker?" 

Article V, Section 18, of the Constitution of 

Texas, creating the commissioners1 court, reads in part as 

follows: 

" . The County CommLss5.oners so chosen, 

with tf;e'couhty judge, as presiding officer, 

shall compose the county Commisslonersl Court, 

which shall exercise such powers and jurisdlction over all oounty business, as is conferred 

by this Constitution and the laws of the State, 

or as may be hereafter prescribed." 

It till be noted that the above provision provides 

that the commissioners1 court shall "exercise such powers 

and jurisdiction over all counts business as is oonfefied 

by thins Constitution and the laws of thi s State, w as may 

be hereafter prescribed." 

Construing this provision, the Supreme Court in 

Bland vs. Orr, 90 Tex. 495, said: 

,'tlhe Constitution does not immediately 

confer jurisdiction upon these (meaning commissioners ooupts over the county business 

and subject that jurisdiction to 'such regu- 

.latlons as the Legislature may prescribe,' 

nor authority geaerally over such business. 

The proviSion from Seation 8 of that lnstrument (already quoted) prescribed: flrst, 

that the commlsslonersl court shall exercise 

such power& and jurl.sdLctlon over all county 

busLn&ss as' La conferred by ths .CbnstLtution. 

. It also gives them such powers as are 

Eo&erred 'by the laws of the State.'. . ." 

It appears settled law of this state that the 

commissi.oners ( court has no general oontrol over cmnty 

business, but only such powers of control as Is conferred 

by the Constitution itself and the laws of this State. 
Mrs. Willie O'Neal, Page 5, O-1919 

We are unable to find any statutory authority, 

expressly or lmpliedly authorizing the commissioners' court 

to employ the services of a welfare worker. It has been 

the policy of the state to be concerned by general legislation in all matters relating to the health, sanitation 

and relFef of its citizensas a whole. The Legislature has 

not seen fit to vest la the commlssioners~ court authority 

to expend county funds for employing case workers, performing duties relating to W. P. A. or relief projects and 

in the absence of such legislation, we are unable to say 

that the commissloners~ court, charged with the care and 

support of the indigent of the county as provided in Article 

2351, Section 11, have any such implied authority. 

In answer to your third question, you are respectfully advised that it is the opinion of this department 

that the commissioners1 court is not authorized to employ 

a oounty welfare worker. 

Question No. 4. "Is the salary authorized 

to be paid the County Judge for acting as au 

intendent of public instruction by Article 3 I?'- 88 

Revised Civil Statutes to be included In calculating the maximum amount that the County Judge 

can drav under Article 3883?” 

We find that the above question has been answered 

In our opinion No. o-67 rendered to your County Attorney, 

Honorable Frank R. Murray, Panhandle, Texas, approved by 

the Attorney General January 11, 1939. For your FnformatFon, 

we are herewith enclosing a copy of. opinion No. o-67, which 

answers your question No. 4, holding that su~ch salary paid to 

the County Judge for acting as superintendent of public lnstructlon la to be Included in calculating the maximum amount 

that the County Judge is allowed to draw under Article 3883, 

Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. 

Trusting the above answers your request, we are 

WJRK:GO:mjs 

APPROVRD FHB 23, 1940 

/#/ Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNHYGHNHRALOFTHXAS 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNRYGHNE3ALOFTlXAS 

BY /s/Wm. J.R. King 

Wm. J. R. King 

Assistant 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY /a/ BWB CHAIRMAN