### OFFICEOFTHEAITORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
**AUSTIN**

GRILD c. MAwn *-n QCIUWALHonorable John C. Mexburger, Page 2

YL Are the Clerk8 end Judges of the ocurt Inwhieh the InterpreterIs employed authorized to Iesuewaste payeble out of the General 

### Fundor mu& auoh interpretersflret presenta oleim to be approved by the CountyAudItmV Artiole 37X.2,

Reviaed Civil Statutes of Texa8, ~926, provides thetr

"The oourtmay, when neoeseery,appoint Interpretera,who may be mxmmned In thr,sanemmner aa wit~essee, and shall be subjeot to the eemepeml

### fA&for dIaobedienc~. (Acta 1846, p. 363; P. 1). n Am019 

### 2076,ReVbed Civil SfatIdS, iQg6, pXVVidW3;
"In each civil wit wherein the eenioes of aa interpreterare used, three dollars shall be charged aad oolleoted **as** part OS the ooetea8 Interpreter*s fees, to be paid rhen colleoted Info the &eneM **rMd6** of the county. (At&s 4th U.S. lQlS, p. 20)" 

### Art1018 2%72, 

### Revised cIvIl~stet&ta 1925, ee 

### emendedby 

### A&a, lW37,(5thLe@slature,pagsd, Oh.106, Par. 1, provides ee follower

"The ConmiSSiOLi8~~courts Of theVal'tOlW oountles ofthie Stete ereherebyauthorieedto pag ror the aez?rIoeo

of Interpretareemployed by the verioue Oourte wIthIn tholr ree otlve oounties a PWII not to excee4 Five Dollare $S)per day, whIoh r is to be paid out of the Generel Funds of the oounty uponwerrente issued by the respectiveOoarts or clerks thereoi'in favor-of the persona rendering euuh eervioem;provided however, thet such fntm gpg;;hall be paid only for-the time he ia eotuellY

Aots 4th OiS. 19lS, po 26: Aots 1957, -4Isth Leg., p:px)l, Oh. 106, 6!lo"
In 19X3, the Fourth Called sesalon of the ThirtYFifth Legieleture emoted a law whioh 

### furnished the freffie

work for all eubeequent a&lone by awoeeding legisleturearegarding the employment and 

### aompensetion ofcourt interpretera.Theaonorable John C. Marburger, Pete 9

phraseologyand .provisions of our current statutoryprovision, Article 2372, aupra, follow in a 

### eingular manner the earlier enedzuent. Ia their essence, the 8ImIlItude lamarked.- It appears that the sole 

### purpose of Artlola 2372, es 

### amended, Ie to inaree8e the pay of court Interpretersfrom $S.SO to $5.00 per day. There Is no referencemade therain es towhether the pro

### vi8Io~ of the Aot should apply to oivil or 

### oriminal oases or both* Thismust 

### be determined.

Both the earlier aot of 19lS and the subsequent araendatory ect of 1987, oonteined emergency alauses. We rerer to this because rrequently emergencyprovisions In statutory enaotmenta afford vital and InformatIve leads towsrde a sound and proper asoertainmentof legielatlve Intent.

A oursory.

ooonalderation

of the 1997 amendatory eot **would** tend to prove that Article 2372 

### Revleed Ulvil Statutes, 1928, 8s amended;wua deaigaed prIma& for applioafion in Instanoes at o&ninsl proeeoution nsoessltati~ the 8ervIoea of an Interpreter6 For vfItne.se this language used in &afting the emergenegolauser

*. . .the l . . iaot*that 

### in a greatnumber OS oountles In this State, It is 

### eaaentltd. In the proseoutlogor or- ~ae8eu# to have aompeten* Interprstere toInterpr8tthetestImony0rwItuoss8s~ unabletos~akortmder8tudtheSr@shZmg~o, and therurtherraotthatthe pa8s8Se of thie law Is neo&mmry In the enforoement of the orImIna1 law8 of this etete oreates en 

### fatuergsn~yand an Imperative pub110 neeearrity.. .v Langam@ of the same Importwas employed In the eme~ genoy olause 0r the orIgina aat.

Ae a rurther substantletlngand 

### supporting raat tending toward8 the oonoluslon that.ArtIala 2072, as amended, applied to orimInal eases only we 

### obeene that there Is no expr888 or Implied-referenceto &I1 o-88 anywhere in the emendatoryast. However, let it be noted, that

### mentionand prevision for oivI1 oaseswere made in the body (d the 

### original Act In 19lS a8 fOllows: Seotion 

### 2. *Za all alvil suitswhereln the services of an Interpreter la used there ahall be.ohar ed end oolleated es.part of the oosts,of the case, a8 Lterpreter's fees, the sum of g3.00,whioh smouutwhen oolleoted shell be paid Into the general 

### runds 0r the uounty."Honorable Johu 0. Marburger, Page 4

The SaI!LO

provision 16 now inaorporatec¶ and found in &t&al8 2676, Revised 61~11 Statutes, 1928, supra.

m this express 

### reference to oivil uasea and by the provi8Ionsrpadethereinfor a runa to be 

### raised by esrraeameht 0s 

### lltlgante

to pay 

### interpreters employedpurfmnt to suoh 0ivIl 

### lItlg&tIon, ore&tea the i.n1pre88ion that the Legislatureintended for the term8 of the Act to apply to Interpretera,in both cial eml OrIaAnal cases.

Having detemined this,we proceed to au inbividual~ 

### treetment of the queationa presented to ua by you. In doing so, we ahal]..iolhm the seme numerioal order of your presentmut.

HO. 1. Au .anawez0s thia questionneoeaserIly involrea the emwer to Ho. 2; therefore, both shellbe treated es one*
It lreem.8 clear-that the judgeof a oourt ooouples a poaltlonwhioh peauliarly qualIfIe8 him to determInewhet oampen8atIan shall be paid to an 

### Interpxeter for setices **rendered.** In ourbpInI~n, the amouut of the oOmpentvatIon allowed IswithIn the mound dirrorstlon of the oourt. This oontentlon is 

### furtheratbh*f he faea~

**by** the 8xpz-888 nordIng of t&e 'Stetrrfe~whiah provldee $a6ge or alerk of a oourf ehall Isaw a wazmnt ta the The exerolse 0s thI8 

### runotlon neoesrerily Infera, walTant tobe 80 By t&la, however,we do not Intend to expressly or impJ.IeQyhoid that the olefk or the court has the power of SIxIng th& oampensatlon to 

### be paid the Interpreter. In our opInIOn, Itwas the intent of the legI8lature,that the clerk oi the oohrtmight issue ewaxrult but only aSter reoeiving 8n order to thet6ffetd rr0m the pmefdlng Judge.



### Further, In the abaenoe of a deiIuIte legi8lative fix

### atlon of a rate of compeneation to 

### be paid Interpreters, it would app&8x, that the power Or WpoIntment bears with it that seoohdarypower of determInIng the oonsiderationfor the rervloea to be rendered. Axtiole 2372, uupra, provides that eh Interpreter ahall 

### be p&Id a sum e. . .not to exaeetl Five ($S.OO)per day. . ."* There.18 no deflnlte, fired, or predetemined rate of oompensationexcept that It shall not exceed $5.00. Therefore, the amount to be paid the Iuterpreteriewithin the diaOr8- tion or the judge or the coort; but in no Instanae 18 that oompeuatlon to exmwl the sum of!$8.00 pes day; By the terms of the Statute theremight be a 

### lessersum paid,but no greater.Honorable John C. Xarburger, Page 5

No. 9. The terms or the statute Infer that a er dIea basis or aompemetion is oontamplated;therefore, t+k Erpreter should be paid by the day rather then by the 0888.

No. 4. The term *employ mana, in this Instance, renderingeervioee, or being in a position to render servioes, for wages. By appointment an Interpreteris. plaoed in either one of the other of these positions. Thus, hi8 oompeneetion Bhall be from that tfme Ih whloh he is required to be In ettend8808 upon the court until the time of his discharge. 

### This does-not neoessarilydepend upon theday or tine of hi8 eppoInG ment, beoeuse such eat lamerely ah event necessary es a preliminary to the actual rendition 0s his servioes, or inoldental 'tohis bei= in a position to reader those servioesr

No. 5. Artiole 2372, provide8 for the payment of Interpretersby *.

. .vmrrants-Issuedby the . . . courts or olerlss

thereor. . .* upon the general fund of the crouuty. ThIa olearlyempowers the oourt or olerk~thereof to issue w-ants to p8,yinterpretere. Buehwarrauts, when signed, &tt88ted, and impressedwith the seal of the-issuingaoort, G oomplIame ' rlth the terms of Article 1545, BaviS84 Civil StatUteS~, 19eS, represent the Interpreter'solaim or aaoouutagaInat the oouutye NO 8pprOVti OthSr*thM hi8 uSu8.l ezeminatI6nand VerFizOaciO8 Of ti ebdJIE3,

bIl-&S,end aOoOWlt ag;ainSt the aOuuty18 req&'ed Of the eouetp auditor. 7be oauuty audIter*s approval In the iti8t In&anoels not reqalred In order 

### for the interpreter to have a valid olafm against the aounty.

It is true that Art1018 3.661, RevisedCIvIl StRtut88; 1925, requires that -. . .Allwerranta on the aounty trea8urer, eroeptwarrants for oounty eudItor.* hi! ury eervIQe, must be aountersignedby the T 8 Shouldbe done. Xowever, thet'aot aonstitutes a ronaality only. In the case now before us, the act of *oountersIgnIngwdoes not necessarily Imply nor require a prior aat or *epproval*v.

Since Artl~le 2392 supersede8 in point of time Artiole 1643, it Is OUT opinion that the Justloe of the Peaoe Courts eve included-within thephimae *varIoueoourt8* of the crounty; oonsequently,the judge thereofmight issuewarrants to pay aourt interpreters.

YE the exerckse of a power grautedby a legielatlve aot 

### inolude

goingbeyond limits fixed by aEonorable John C. Herburger, *age 6

prior statute, auoh limltatlon is implledly removed, at leest so far **a8** it oonfliatsWith the doing 0s thatwhich is subsequentlyauthorized." Sutherland on Statutory Construotion,Notion 145 et p. 195. Trusting that thie satiafeatorllyanswer8 your questlon8,we remIn

Yours very truly
ATTGRNEYGEVERALOFTEXAS

By **./S/** GrundyWillbaa

Gutew
APPRoZ3pf&ld,1940 Attm?neg~General of Texas

Opinion OommIttee By B. 19.8. ChaInnan