. -

April 13, 1948

Hon. John C. Marburger County Attorney Fayette County La Grange, Texas Opinion Ho. V-542
Re: The authority of the Commlsslonerst

Court to pay .aportion of the salary and expenses of an asslstant county agent to set up a balanced farm program, the remainder of the financea to come from other sources.
Dear Sir: Reference Is made to which Is, in part, as follows:your recent request

"The SchulenburgChamber of Commerce has requested the Commlssionerst Court of Fayette County, Texas, to contributetax money for.

support of an assistant County Agent who Is to work with certain persons and none others. Said Chamber of Commerce has submittedthree lzoposals in an-order to accomplish said purpose and which letter and request of the Chamber of Commeroe to the Coxmnlssionersv Court reads as follows: ~"*The followingplans of financinga balanced farm program for Fayette County were presented verbally to your court on March 1, 1948, as follows: "'PlanNo. 1 Balanced Farm Program for Fayette County Set up on a One Year Basis

“‘ 50 farmersat $50. each * $2500 Schul.enburg

Chamber ofHon. John C. Marburger,page 2, (V-542)

Commerce and local'buslnessmen $1250 Cosmlssloners

Court Total "'These50 farmers to be selected In the schulenturgtrades territorythrougha screen process where the County Agent will aid the Chamber of CommerceAgrlculturalCommitteeIn final seleotlon. ~"ITheTexas A & M Extension Service to furnish a qualifiedman to act in the capacityof an Assistant CountyAgent to work with and supervisethese 50 farmere. This Assistant CountyAgent to be under the supervlslon'of the Couutp Agent under the direct supervisionof the Texas A.& M JZxtension Department; the ExtensionDepartment to'work through Its local representative agency, the Commfsaionerss Court. "'The $5000 to be used for salary and travelingexpenses of the Assistant CountyAgent who Is to supervisethese 50 farmers.l’ Plan lo. 2, in legal effect, la aubstantlally like plan no. 1 except that towns la the.fourppeclncts are to contribute$1250 instead of the Chamber of Commerce and local businessmen.

Continuingwith your, letter: "'PlanHo.,

3
To Provide Funds for an Assistant County Agent to Work on a Home and Farm Program' "'ProvLde

an Assistant County Agent to relieve the CountyAgent 80 that the CountyAgent and Iiome Demonstration Agent might have enough free time to set up a home - farm pro ram with at least 7 to 10 fandlles In Bayette County. A minimum of 12 calls a~ to be made at each home during the year. The Assis-Hon. John C. Msrbwger, page 3 (V-542)

tant County Agent is to devote the balance of hlS time aiding the County Agent In his regular routine work. The ExtensionDepartment,would probablybe in a poaltion .to.furnish about twothirds of'

the coat.

of this As,slstant County Agent in,salaryand traveling expenses; the Commissioners Court to furnlsh,the,balance which shouldpun approximately$1000. .Thlsprogram will give complete county. coverage. The Asslstant County Agent Is to be furnished by the ExtensionDepartmentand act under the supervisionof the County Agent.'"
In the c&e, of GalvestonB.& S.A. Ry. v. Uvalde County, 167 S.w.(2d) 305, (Clv.App. 1942~, error refused)~the,

court said: 'The Commlssloners~ Court of a county has, pnly such powers as are expressly OF by necessary implicationgiven It by the Constltutlonand statutes of this State."

we have not found any provision,lnthe Oonatltutlon or any statute which authorizesGoam&asioners' Courts to contributeany county money for.such a purpose. On the contrary, Section 52 of Artlcle~ III of the State Constitution provides, in paPt, that: ': "The Leglsliture shall have no poker to authorlrie any county, city, i , town or other'polltlcal corporation or subdivisionof the State to lend Its credit or to grant public money or thing of value In ala of, or to any individual,absoclatlo+or',corporatlonwhatsoever, -'

. . Section 53 of Article III of the Constitution Is as follows:

"The Legislature shall have no payer to grant, or to authoHee any county or municipal authority to grant, any extra compensation, fee or allow- 'ante to a public officer, agent, secvant or contractor,after servicehssEon. John C. Marburger,page 4 (V-542)

been rendered, or a contracthas been entered Into, and performedin whole' or In part; nor pay, ROF authorize the payment of, any claim createdagainst any'countyor munlclpalltyof,the State, under any agreement or cofttract, m without authority of law, (Emphasls~ours)
It will be noted that ~ndsr.Plana Nos. 1 and 2, as aubmltted,~

It Is provided that only 50 people will be served In the entire county, even though the money which Is to be,contributed by the county Is money paid Into the County Treasuxyby taxes which were asaeased for a public purpose only. We believe the contributions to be made by the county under the first two plans come within the lnhlbltlonsof the above quoted provisionsof the Conatltution. Therefore,It 1s~ our opinion that the Commlssloners~

Court may not contributethe money Under Plans Ros. 1 and 2.

Article 164, V. C. S.,.fs as follows: "The Coass.lsaloner~s Court of any, county of this State Is authorizedto establlahand conduct co-operativedemonstpatlon

work In Agrlcultum and home eoonomlcs in co-operatlon:wlth the Agrlc5ultural

and MechanicalCollege 0r Texas/upon such terms and condltlona aa may be agreed upon by the Oommlsslon-,; * errs' Court and the agents of the Agrlculturaland HeohahloalCollege of Teas; Sna MY employ such meana, and m&y appropriateand expendsuch sumsof .money as may'be necessary to efreotivelyestabliah and carry on'suchdemonstration work In Agricultureand Home ln their respective tountied. ~conomica

The above statute is an amendmant of ktlcle 164, R&sea Civil Statutes, 1925, which art1018 as codlfleallmlted the expenditureof fund8 by a aounty 'not exceedingone thousanddollars per year, for farmerl co-operative

demonstration

work In the tounty

. . In the 1927 amendment of said Article 164, this iilhitatlon

was omlttea. Consequently, the only llmltatlonplaoed upon the expenditureOf~coUntyfUnda Mder our pr8s8nt statute 18 the OOn8titUtio~nlo~~tatlons of tax levies for county purposes._. -

Hon. John C. Marburger,page 5 (V-542)

words, the above A&gives broad poiers to the Comtaissloners'Court and leaves to their judgment the question as to what 1s~"necessaryto effectivelyestabllsh.and carry on such demonstration work In Agrlcultpe and Home Economics in their respective,oountles. That conducting and carrying on such work as providedby the Legislatureis "Countybusiness"as within the contemplation of Article V, Section 18 of the Constitutionof Texas has never been questioned.

. !X!he facts submittedunder-PlanNo. 3 refleot thatthe funds to be expendedare for a public purpose. There is no limitationas to the number of persons which may be served; nor Is there a contribution required of said persons served by this program before they may enjoy the benefits of the same. Therefore, by virtue of the foreging, it is the opinion of this Department,that the CosWisloners' Court may employ an Assistant.Oounty Agent to aid the County Agent ln the promotion of a farm program as outlinedunder Plan No. 3.

The CommlasIon8rs1 Court of Fayette County may not contribute.county money for an Assistant County Agent whose assistance Is limited to a particular 50 farmers and none others. Such employment'ls not for a gubllc~ purpose. Sections 52 and 53 of Article III of the State Constltutlon. However, the county may employ suoh an Assistant If he la to be engaged In conductingand oarrying on agricultural

work aa oounty business and not for a private purpose. Art. 164, V. c. 8, 

# ftizL7Jd

ATTORlVE!i

GENERAL
BA:mw Yours very truly, ATTORlOlCYGEilVEML

OFTEXAS