OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GRILD c. MAwn 

*-n QCIUWAL 
Honorable John C. Mexburger, Page 2 

YL Are the Clerk8 end Judges of the ocurt 

In whieh the Interpreter Is employed 

authorized to Iesue waste payeble 

out of the General Fund or mu& auoh 

interpreters flret present a oleim to 

be approved by the County AudItmV 

Artiole 37X.2, Reviaed Civil Statutes of Texa8, ~926, 

provides thetr 

"The oourt may, when neoeseery, appoint Interpretera, who may be mxmmned In thr, sane mmner aa 

wit~essee, and shall be subjeot to the eeme pemlfA&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 

interpreter are used, three dollars shall be charged 

aad oolleoted as part OS the ooete a8 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 

emended by A&a, lW37, (5th Le@slature, pags d, Oh. 106, 

Par. 1, provides ee follower 

"The ConmiSSiOLi8~~ courts Of the Val'tOlW 

oountles ofthie Stete ereherebyauthorieedto pag 

ror the aez?rIoeo of Interpretare employed by the 

verioue Oourte wIthIn tholr ree otlve oounties a 

PWII not to excee4 Five Dollare r $S) per day, whIoh 

is to be paid out of the Generel Funds of the oounty 

uponwerrente issued by the respective Ooarts 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 legisleturea regarding the employment and aompensetion of court interpretera. The 
aonorable John C. Marburger, Pete 9 

phraseology and .provisions of our current statutory provision, 

Article 2372, aupra, follow in a eingular manner the earlier 

enedzuent . Ia their essence, the 8ImIlItude la marked.- It appears that the sole purpose of Artlola 2372, es amended, Ie to 

inaree8e the pay of court Interpreters from $S.SO to $5.00 per 

day. There Is no reference made therain es to whether the provi8Io~ of the Aot should apply to oivil or oriminal oases or 

both* This must be determined. 

Both the earlier aot of 19lS and the subsequent araendatory ect of 1987, oonteined emergency alauses. We rerer to 

this because rrequently emergency provisions In statutory enaotmenta afford vital and InformatIve leads towsrde a sound and proper 

asoertainment of 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 

emergeneg olauser 

*. . .the l . . iaot*that in a great number 

OS oountles In this State, It is eaaentltd. In the 

proseoutlog or 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~y and an Imperative 

pub110 neeearrity. . .v 

Langam@ of the same Import was employed In the eme~ 

genoy olause 0r the orIgina aat. 

Ae a rurther substantletlng and 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-reference to &I1 o-88 anywhere in the emendatory ast. 

However, let it be noted, that mention and prevision for oivI1 

oases were made in the body (d the original Act In 19lS a8 fOllows: 

Seotion 2. *Za all alvil suits whereln 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 smouut when 

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 

provi8Ions rpade therein for a runa to be raised by esrraeameht 

0s lltlgante to pay interpreters employed purfmnt to suoh 0ivIl 

lItlg&tIon, ore&tea the i.n1pre88ion that the Legislature intended 

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 .anawez 0s thia question neoeaserIly involrea the emwer to Ho. 2; therefore, both shell be treated es 

one* 

It lreem.8 clear-that the judge of a oourt ooouples a 

poaltlon whioh peauliarly qualIfIe8 him to determIne whet oampen8atIan shall be paid to an Interpxeter for setices rendered. 

In ourbpInI~n, the amouut of the oOmpentvatIon allowed Is withIn 

the mound dirrorstlon of the oourt. This oontentlon is further 

atbh*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 to be 80 

By t&la, however, we do not Intend to expressly 

or impJ.IeQy hoid that the olefk or the court has the power of 

SIxIng th& oampensatlon to be paid the Interpreter. In our 

opInIOn, It was 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 fixatlon of a rate of compeneation to be paid Interpreters, it 

would app&8x, that the power Or WpoIntment bears with it that 

seoohdary power of determInIng the oonsideration for 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 oompensation except that It shall not exceed $5.00. Therefore, the amount to be paid the Iuterpreter ie within 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 there might be a lesser sum 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, 

rendering eervioee , or being in a position to render servioes, 

for wages. By appointment an Interpreter is. 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 neoessarily depend upon the day or tine of hi8 eppoInG 

ment, beoeuse such eat la merely ah event necessary es a preliminary to the actual rendition 0s his servioes, or inoldental 

'to his bei= in a position to reader those servioesr 

No. 5. Artiole 2372, provide8 for the payment of Interpreters by *. . .vmrrants-Issued by the . . . courts or 

olerlss thereor. . .* upon the general fund of the crouuty. ThIa 

olearly empowers the oourt or olerk~thereof to issue w-ants 

to p8,y interpretere. Buehwarrauts, when signed, &tt88ted, and 

impressed with the seal of the-issuing aoort, G oomplIame ' 

rlth the terms of Article 1545, BaviS84 Civil StatUteS~, 19eS, 

represent the Interpreter's olaim or aaoouut agaInat the oouutye 

NO 8pprOVti OthSr*thM hi8 uSu8.l ezeminatI6n and 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, Revised CIvIl StRtut88; 

1925, requires that -. . .All werranta on the aounty trea8urer, 

eroept warrants for 

oounty eudItor.* hi! 

ury eervIQe, must be aountersigned by the 

T 8 Should be done. Xowever, thet'aot aonstitutes a ronaality only. In the case now before us, the act of 

*oountersIgnIngw does 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 the phimae *varIoue oourt8* of the crounty; 

oonsequently, the judge thereof might issue warrants to pay 

aourt interpreters. 

YE the exerckse of a power grauted by a legielatlve aot inolude going beyond limits fixed by a 
Eonorable John C. Herburger, *age 6 

prior statute, auoh limltatlon is implledly removed, 

at leest so far a8 it oonfliats With the doing 0s 

that which is subsequently authorized." Sutherland 

on Statutory Construotion, Notion 145 et p. 195. 

Trusting that thie satiafeatorlly answer8 your questlon8, we remIn 

Yours very truly 

ATTGRNEYGEVERALOFTEXAS 

By ./S/ Grundy Willbaa 

Gutew 

APPRoZ3pf&ld,1940 

Attm?neg~General of Texas 

Opinion OommIttee 

By B. 19. 8. ChaInnan