FAGAN DICH!3OX .,&ch 24, 1948 -usIIIwI
yn'the above aub,ject+t.ter.is, In;part,,as f+l.lqys~ ,'. .:4 "At thd Janrie;iy'term;th@ ~Commiss10nkp'~s 'Court voted to remai&on*a 'fee~bksis' for- th& sear ig48i, The Cog@ssiotiers* Cc& ~:set'the&xLti~kmount of fees to be re.- .. ;t&+a'by the sheriff'(Arji;:'3883,3891:; '," etc.)".Ft $3,600.00p+ Jiear. ., <. i 'By the.,author;tgana-&.r~b~ion~of"Ari.- ' 6877-l Vernon's &n. C&v. @+?, Sec. 1 (c) the Canrmissioners*Co-t entered &tiorder. to pay the~sh&lff.anh hissdepn&i&"7q! pe?? mile for the use of.their persone;llgowned cars'for each mile traveled In the ptiyf,qrm- knee '0P official.'dutles.~~f.,'o,ffi~e. :,~ j..I ._ "Quest&i' Ho. 1 --lk,li'th&~aniountpaid ,to.'. the sheriff and hli deputies under the above order be a"fee'o~.~'~thg-irher~fff's of- fke *ma+ Art.;3883;389%. etc., sna ifso wall-it be~accoMtable.bJi'.himae 'other " : II i ... "Question'No~ 2---If the'-'ans%rer;$@ Qkeg-. ' ' tioti'No.1'1s ~afflr&tive;~hould the pay ,:I for this mileage be made to the shetilff'. .'~ to be by h$m paid ag ,w sees proper to the deputies oF sh&la.$he &puts beg psi~.dg- _* .~,. rect? .. :
"Question No. 3 ---Since Art. 6877-l'is .a*- parently mandatory, will Commissioner's Hon. R. Y. King, page 2. (V-526)
courts have the authority to limit the nnrp- ber of mll6s that till be approved forpay- ment? That is, limit the sheriff to say 2000 miles maximum, first deputy 1500 miles, etc.? ,_" 'Question~No.~---HOW can'~iheCommission-~ er's court determine what ndleage is offi- cial auty?m H.'B. 501, Acts of~,~the 50th Legi&at&e,~ti. S. 1947, (Art. 6877-1, V;C.S.)Vas held to be,.inandato+,'by oti Opinion Ho. V-293. It was further 'held' in Opinion Ho. V-515.that the traveling expense provided~by R. B. 501 was to be paid to.a sheriff on a fee basis out of the general fund of the county and noLout of fees of office. Ferefore, th+traveling expense OS a sheriff provided by the provisidhs.OS H;.B.'501 is n0t.a fee .~ of office and will not be &count%8 Sbr tisa fee by the sheriff. NeLther is quch travellng,exp+se.a portion of the salaries,p&d those shertifs On a'salaky basis. Therefore,.it.is.our 0plniOfiin answer..toyour 'first question tb& the.amount +.id:a& traveling expenses ti- der the order of the CommLSs16hers1 Cotit mehti6ned in your request.is hot a fke of .th& ~h&+iSf~$'off'iceand '; wlll not be accountable atia f&e tisz%iiring at the sheriff's~ti,compensatio~. :,-..~ '.. .Ih,vlew of., it is not,ne@3ssary ., to answer que.stJon.lGdt, ?.1 S&ion 2'0s H;'B. 501.~p&&& &at'&& to the present-Act there,wa& no atl~qtrgjklawprovld$ng for transportationf66 kheriffs and'thelz depnties. There- fore, the Legislature enacted.& & 5Ol:and did not place a limit.on the~ikmb6r 'hbrdie's Qhlch'the sheriff coald-trave>.In'theperformance dS.6SSi.ci;al, autfes. Ori the contrary, the I&jis&ature pro+iaea ur@er subdivision (0) that they "shall be paid,not.Zek~s:thEin rilx'cents (6#) per mile.nor rnb-ti~teti cents''(I&) per ndle traveled in th6 performance of'WSlcia1 duties." Therefore, it is our opinion that the Commissioni3rs~. Court cannQt l+t the.number of.m$les whlch~.tl&e.Sher- iif and hls:,deputie$mag tra+eJ.in $he perftir+anceof 0SSiclal duties. ,,. .:'I : ., " :..:.... .. :, ;H. B.'-561.states &at 'Bl~~don;pensation'pald under the p~ovlslons of this Aot &hall be Pp&'a sworn- statement of such sheriff.' In view of this pr?vlsZon, . - ~Hon. R. Y. KQg, page 3. (V-526) c TV: ..
it is