OFFICEOFIHE A'170RNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable D. C. Oremr Stats fiighway

Xnglmor Aurrtin,

Teaa

Dear Sir: OpinionNo. 0485E
.BerThe authority of the Etato blghway Department to require hQhway oonl d!uotion

o ontra ato ra

to two paint puroha8ed and omd by tha State of Texas and deduot the uoat of suoh paint from the oontraotor'a Axmthly sstlmate8. ke aoknomlgbge reoeipt oi your request r0r en oeinlcn of thie Deportlmt on the question arrto whether the 4ate 

### highwayDepartimntia authodmd to 

### pur~hmm paliSt be LIEO~ on all maintenanoo and oonetruotlonwork ‘ml require al9 oontraotorr rer.oons+uotlon of Mrk to use the paint’ao purohassd and .to ~doduot. Zmm 

### tfre..oontraotcpt'a 

## eatiwte-the90') of the.gialnt

**tied by**  #ueh oontraotor. 7 'Theexo'luilve

and 8010 l

&hitirrtratire~qontrol of the &ate d.ghwayr 

### Fe testedin the state&&&my Qomiaaion. (Art. 5663 fi.C.8,) In the odm oi k%m.v. Be&n, 46 S. W. (2d) 586 (6om.App.),the oourt saidt

V&e &foot of t&e prwmt statute (Vsrnon~s imnotataa 

### CirflStatutor,-Art, 6666~ et 

### seq.1on the subjoot is to ve6t admfnietratlre oontrol of all public road8 whioh might be a pati of theEon. D. C. Crew, page 2

state highmy system in the state hi(zhwaydepartment, with reepeot to the designation, lboatlon, relocation, I~prov:znent, construction, abandonment, or discontinuancethereof. chatever said deoartment may do in the premisea, in the exercise of eu honest discretion,must be respeotedwhen untainted by fraud and unassailed on aooount of accident or cisteke ooourrihg In their performanoe, or suoh abuse of discretion as under the authorities **WOUld SVOid**  the ABme." (Undersoorlngems) i-. I ns above held It la solely with the Ltate highway Commissionto determine the manher In whioh aaid highway shouldbe oohstruotedand their deterrrinatlon oan be assailed only it it is tainted with some speoles of fraud.
If the statehighway Comiesion determines that the interestof the.

Et&e will be beat served by requiring all contractorsto use paint aoqulred by the State Highwa'y*Departzmnt as above rot forth that is a matter that can be determined onlyby the btate al&way ComuIssion. In the eeee of Losheim v. kollins, 79 S. b. ($33) 678, the Court of CivilAppeal6 held:

-'The &ate hli'hwayConunlsslon Is authorized to take over and maintain the various state highwuye in Texas, an6, In aooompliahiug this duty imposedupon it, the judtgnent ot the highway Commission,and 

### not of eomaone else, 18 euprem. The faot'that there are better my8 of maintaining the highways is unlmportant.w (Undersoorlng owa 1 hot only do ve bell&e that the broad grant of powers to the State highway Ccwmlsslon authorizes the purohase and L+ndlingof paint as outlined In your request, but we be-. liere thatArtiole 6674k, hevised Cirll Statutes is au express authorization 80 to do. Sal6 Artlole being as follower

*The State Flghway Cormniasion shall prescribe the form of suoh contract and may Inolude therein such rotters as they may deem advantaneous to the State.n Go( thererore, see no reason why, If the State hi&?.?.way CommissiondetermInes that it would be edranteCeou8 to the Ltate, eald Comlsslon cannot require all contractorsto 1288L -

a0n. U. C. Greer,page 3

paint which has theretoforebeen purchasedby the state hlghwey fiepartmmtand deduct the cost of such paint from the estlmtee of the contractors. You are, therefore, advised that our answer to yc,ur inquiry la in the ai'flnuetlve. However, this opinion Is not to be oonstrued as authorizing the state Ughwey Department to oherge oontreotore more than cost becausewe find nothing in the law that would authorize it to engage in a proprietary enterprlae.

om SEP 19, 1941 Yours vary tNly