. -

September 24, 1949 Supersedes @inion 

### v-750 See Art. ~@&~;v.c.s. Hon. MO B.,

Campbell Opinion NO. 

### v-912 CountyAuditor Nacogdoches

county Be: Salary of constable Aocogdoches,

Texas for 1949, ,I I Dear Sir:

Your requestfor an opinion is 88 follows:

“If the Commissioners’ Court ol Nacogdochea County in January 1949 eek salaries of constables

withoutteking into consideration and basing such salaries on earnings of constables in 1935? may the same Court now befon the end of the year 1949, r-e-set hese salaries

and reduce them?
%ay the Commissioners’ Court set constables’salaries at fixed amounts, and at the same time in addition to these salaries

allow said constables to collectend retain fees of office and mileageas pert of their compenset ion, ”

From January 1, 1949,until the effective date of SenateBill 

### 92, Acts of the 51et Legislature, (June 

### 6, 1949) the amount of salaries .to be paid the constables in counties

where the precinct officers,

other than the constables, were compeneated

on a “fee basis,”ME left to the discretion

of the Commis8loners’ Court. A.G, Opinion got 

### V-749,
a copy of which ia enclosed.

provide’:

Sections1 and 3 of SenateBill 92 of the 5lst LegUlature

“section

1, The Commissioners Court in each county of this State Is herebyauthorized, when in their judgment ti%e flnu.tcial condition of the countyand the needs of the officer justifythe increase, to enter an order increasing

the compensation

of the precinct,

countyand district

offlcerr, or either of them, in an additional amountnot to exceedtwenty-five (2%) per cent of the
sum allovedunder the law for the fiscalyear of 1948, whetherpaid on fee or salary beaiajprovided,

however, the members of the Commissionern Court may not raise ,the urlarier

of any of such Commissioners Court under the. -

EUI. M. B. Cupbell, page 2 (V-9l2)

tesm6 of the Act without rai6ing the nelaryof the remining countyofficlalm in like proportion.



### "sec. 3. All of 6ald officer6 who were paid on a fee ba6i6 duringthe flrcalyear of 

### 1948, and who (~‘0

now to be paid on a 6alary ba616, rim11 be paid an annual 6alary in twelve (12) equal in6tallments of not let36

than th6 total 6um earneda6 compeneetion by him in hi6 officialcapacity for the fiscalyear of 

### 1935, and not mor6 than th6 maximum sum allowed such officer under the law6 exi6ting
on August 24, 

### 1948, together

with the twenty-five(2%) per cent increase

allowed

by this Act within the dlrcretlon of the Commirrioner6 Court."
Bection 

### 3, above quoted, place6 a minimumaud mm on the 68laryto be paid the con6tablej the minimus

being not le8g tlmntb t&al mm earned as compenution by him for the fl6& yeam 

### 1935. Tbrefon, from June 

### 6, 1949, (the effective date of B.B. 92) the con6tables

were entitled

to annual salaries of not 1066 tbnthr total M earnedby them in 

### 1935.

The Commissioners1 Court ie authorized by the proviBicas of 8ection 1 above quoted, to raise the 6elarle6 of the co~tabl06 in 6n additional

amountnot to exceedtwenty-five per cat of thr uirn 6um allowed such officers under the law for the fircalye&r 

### 1948.

You have informed

u6 in an6werto our reque6tfor additional information

that the constables of Bacogdochem COrnrty hoi Jw 1, 

### 1949, until the prelrent

date are being paid auaual 6alarie6 of #15CO.o0 per’ annum. You fur&ear state that the6e 6alarier m in ace66 of the total mm earnedby laid official6 for the fircalyear 

### 1935. The Comti661aerBt Court of Bacoqdocher County 16 authorized by the provi6ion6 of Section 1, above quoted, to nire the 6alaries of the conEtable in
an additional

amountnot to exceed twenty-five per cent of the a~imum 6u6 allowed 6uch officer6 under the law for the fiscalyear 

### 1948. There 16 no provfelon, however,in SeaateBill 92 which would prohibit th6 Colmnirllloners'

Court to change the ralarier of the COnEtable 60 long a6 they are paid the minimum fixed in Eaid Act.

In AttorneyGeneralOpinion No. 

### 0-5061

the question

before the Attorney Generalet that time wa6 whetherthe action of the Comml6- lioner6'Court In raisingthe salaryof the dirtrict clerkwithin the minimum end maximum limitsprovided by law after the 6alaX-y had once been set wa6 valid. It was held in thie opinionthat:

"We have likewise been unable to find any authorities forbidding

the action taken by the commi66ioner6' court. It ir true that Section2 of Article 3912e,V.A.C.S.,requiresthe CO~i66iOIler6' court of every county in Texas at it6 first regular meeting in Januaryof each year toa. M. B. Campte~, peep 3 (V-912)

determUm whether certain precinctofficersshallbe placed
on a salary or fee barie; thie section aleo provider that in countlen

having a populatlon of lees than 20,000 lnhabitar&#,according to the laet preceding FedezulCenme that each comirrloners ’ court shellat it8 first regularmeeting in Januaryof each year determine whether its,

county officen should

be placed on a salaryor fee basis. Section 15 of Article 

### 39126, V.A.C.S.,

also provider

that the coimiaeionerr~

court In countlee

havinga population of lees than 20,000 inhabittmts, according

to the laet precedingFederalCensus,at the first regular meeting In Jamary of each calendar year, may pams 8n orderproviding for compensation of all countyend precinctofficers
on a ealary

basis. Bowever,

Sectionn

2 

### and 15 of Article 3912e, V.A.C.S.,

do not apply to the countyofficers of Brazoria County,said countyhavinga population in exceee of 20,COO InhabItante according to the last preceding Federal Cenmm. Section 13 of Article 39l2e,V.A.C.S., which governsthe ralarier of the couutyofficers of Brazoria County, contain8 no epecific

requirement

that salaries be set at the first regular meetingof the commirlionem ’ court In Januaryof each year.”

It is noted that the rea.8oh for holding that the salaryof the districtclerk couldbe chauged was that them was no law requirleg the comissioners~ court to set the ealaries of officials

governed by Section13-ofArticle 3912e, Vernon’sCivil Statutea, to be eet et it8 first regular

meeting in January. Furthermore, it was pointedout that there we6 no provision In eald Article which would prohibit the comissioners’ court from changing the salaries

prevlourly

ret. We bellcvethe reasoning in Attorney 0encra.l Opinion

No. O-5061 la sound. We therefore

affixm said opinion.

In the Instantcase, salaries of constablei

are no longer governed

by Section2 of Article 3912e,which required the conmissionam’ court in every couhty, at Its regular

meeting in January, to detarminewhether

precinctofficera shallbe compensated on a wlary or fee basis. Section61 of ArticleXVI of the Constitution of Texas aa amded In Ilovwdor, 1948, place& all conetabler in the State on a salary bamir be&naing Janumy 1, 1949.

In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion

that the coaulsrioaere’

court of llacogdoches Countymy now set the salaries of constablesat any mum not lere than the total earnedby them as compensetion for the fiecalyear 1935 nor more than the mximum mm allowed such offlcere

under laws existing on August 24, 1948, together with the twenty-five

per cent increare allowed by SenateBill 92.
Following

the reasoning

in Attorney General Opinion No. o-5061, it lo our opinion that the eelariea of conetables may be railed or lowered

### Eoa.M. B. cupbell,page 4 (v-912)

et any time duringttm year 80 long aa the ealarie~ xauln within ttr a ln5 mm

a n a n a x i rr

U o u nt m

l llomd by law.

In Attorney General Opinion Ilo. V-71, It was held that thr collalesioncrrf

court diB not have authority to allow a con&able who ir compennated

on a ealary

basim mlleage for the urn of hia automobile intbe dipchar@ of official burlnesr: We enclow a copy of this prior opinion. WC have been unableto find uy~ rtatutosy provi~iom aubaequent to the date of thie foreping opinion wblch would authorire tba comtable of Bacogdoches Countymileage for the use of hir autowblle In the di6charge

of official

butler.

Under the provinions of SenateBill 92, Act6 of tbr 51& Leglrlature, the mutable8 of NacoudocherCountyare entitled to axi atmual aaluy of not leas than the total rum eaxnedby tbea am coapen&ion ?or the fircalyear 

### 1935 ma not 1105, than the maximummm allovedmuch officem under law6 existing

August 24, 

### 1948;

anatho nalarier 

### of conetablee nmybe reduced or raised ice long M tlw malarler $0 

### changed remain 

### within

the tiniaa mb maximumallowed

by law. A.5. Opinion We. 0-m.

Conatebles

caunot be allowedto retain fees of office

but must pay all feae eaxaed into the CountyTxeaaury. Art. XVI, tic. 6I, Coa#t. of Tena a
The comvnimbnerr court of Racogaocher County IS not authorized

to allow the constables mileage, for the use of their autoamblle In the Blachsrge of official duties

. A. 5. Opinion No. V-71.

Yours very tmly, 3R:bh:sw:egw:ln’

APPROVND

/I/ Jos R. GreenhLll ATTORNNY - OFTECM

By /I/ John Reeve@

John Reeve* Aasietaut