The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-08-13

that the commissioners conrt %, A. -.
sct unless the mower has been expressly
nt sinssd % them by law. and | am sus.
Thee. Bland ..et al vs. w L. Orr. Comfy
Nudge, 80 Texas Rep. 402 also Nils
igunty W.. Lampasns County. 90 Texas 6O3
tnat nearly all the duties sought 10 he I'M
posed upon said auditor or clerk has been
provided for by the legislature as follows;
missoners epvr ee,o'y res upon S ot tse CON
statute; checking bills devolves mon
SAID court Sec. s Supra. THE district
tthhu o az eacn term nIon. the request OF
OF three citizens Of the county, men Of
good moral character and intelilgence and
sHperlenced accountants. to examine into
tne condition OF the finances OF the coun-
~. Art $40 Sayles; ut shall be the duty
or the county treasurer 10 examine the
accounts, dockets and records OF the clerks.
sheriff justice of tho ueace, constahle and
tax collector OF his county. for the pnr.
pose or nscertNlning whether any monies
OF right belonging TO his county ue in
their hands which have not been accounted
Tor ana paid over according to law and
shan report the same to the commission.
ers court at their next term to the end
mat suit may be instituted" Art. e3l
saves The clerk OF the county court
shall he exoficio clerk of the commission.
ers court and Il shall be the duty of such
clerk to attend upon each term OF said
court; preserve and keep in his possession
all books, papers. records and elects he
longing thereto; to issue all notices wrifs
anu processes necessary for the prOper
execution OF the powers and duties Inn
posed uopn said commissioners court and
70 perform all such other duties us may
be prescribed by law Art. 1857 Sayles
Statutes.
The legislature having imposed the duties
upon different officers 1t must he inferred
that that body Intended that those Off
GERS should perform these duties and that
no other person should do So II seems
to me that the maxim expresso unius est
eXcluslo alterius is applicable
| am mindful of the fact that our su.
preme court has In cases OF Colorado Coun.
~ vs. Beetle, A Texas AT and Lonscan
vs. Harris County, rs Texas 511, Intimate
that the commissioners court has general
control over finances of county such a,
Is ordinarily conferred upon the directors
Of private corporations, but these de-
clsions have been expressly overruled by
tined question from the court Of civil
appeals. Second district, reported in the
.ns" 81 Fheo. Bland vs.. W. l.. Orr, County
Judge Supra.
,ecugnlze that the Office sought 10 lie
creuted is necessity and II the commits
same it would be a leneRt to the cosnty,
but a bill was introduced at the last egs.
lature wherein n was sought to create the
office In question, but II never became q
law, and while / regret very much the
necessity Of advising that the act Of tho
commissioners court in attempting to create
the office Of auditor or special clerk with
salary attached, is a nullty, II Is my duty
TO cite you the law as ! find Il under the
constitution and the statutes OF the state
az construed by able jurlsts and reported
In the reports Of the supreme court OF
this State. Respectfully submitted,
f. T. Schwander
Attorney for Harris County.