The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-15

the determination OF the number OF depu
ties which may be employed by an office
Ia a county affair within the meaning o
that provision of the constitution which
prescribes that the commissioners court
| shall exercise such powers and turisdic
tion over all county business as Is con.
| ferred by this constitution and the laws oil
| this state The officers to whom this
provision applies, though called county Of
| ficers, are, in fact. officers of the State
| (Fears VS.. Nacogdoches County, IL Texas,
| 33i) and the number of deputies to be
allowed to each can not properly be
deemed county affair. Besides, under
the pro, ision quoted the power OF the CON-
missioners court extends only to such
business as is intrusted to 1t by the con-
stitution and to such as the legislature
may coniide TO it. The provision does not
inhibit the legislature from committing a
matter OF county business upon some other
agency. But ii is also contended That the
act is invalid because, by the provision
under consideration, the legislature at
tempts to confer upon Judicial officer a
power which is not judicial. To this 1t Is
sufficient to answer that the county judge
is not judicial officer only. When hold
ing sessions of his court his powers are,
as rule, purely judicial; but, in addition
to his duties as Judge. there are various
executive and ministerial functions con-
ferred upon him by the constitution anu
laws. Besides this, we have held that
court may, II it WILL exercise an extra
judicial power conferred upon 1t by the
legislature, such as the removal OF the
disabilities of minor.
In conclusion, the court says: THE
statute provides that those officers whose
compensation is limited to minimum
shall pay any surplus of fees received by
them over sufficiency 10 pay their re-
spective salaries and those of their depu-
ties, into the county treasury; and since
the State pays certain fees to the district
clerks, county judges and justices OF the
peace, it is contended that the effect of
the law is to take from the revenues OF
the State raised by taxation at large,
moneys to pay fees of office and to appro-
pirate them to the use of certain counties.
If this were shown to be true, however
negotiable and out of harmony with the
spirit of the constitution it may seem, we
do not see that 1t violates any special pro-
vision of that instrument. He who claims
that an act of the legislature infringes the
fundamental law should point out the re-
striction which Is claimed to have been
violated But. unless the fees paid by the
State to any particulag officer should be
more than sufficient to pay his salary, we
do not see how ii could be said that the
tax money was covered into the county
treasury. II it were unlawful so to ap-
propriate the States revenues, it would be
deemed that the surplus which was TO be
paid to the use of the counties was paid
from the fees collected from private par
ties. 1t has not been shown in this pro-
ceeding that the fees of office paid by the
State to any officer affected by the act
will be more than sufficient to pay his sal
airy; and we gravely doubt whether such
fees will be sufficient to pay the compen-
sation of any officer in any county in the
State to which the provision applies.
We conclude that the act in question in
this case is valid and therefore, the writ
Of mandamus is denied
The opinion is by Chief Justice Gaines. I