Court Opinion

ID: 4137247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-18 02:22:39.67915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:45.028941
License: Public Domain

,~~~EATTORNEY               GENERAL
                              OF-TEXAS

PRICE   DANIEL
.4TTOR?awGENERAL
                               September 22, 1952

           Hon. Larry 0. Cox
           Executive Director
           Board for Texas State Hospitals
             and Special Schools
           Austin, +xas             opinion. HO. V-152j
                                         Re:   Construction of Texas
                                               Constitution, Article
                                               XVI, Sections 12, 33,
                                               and 40, as applied to
                                               certain employees and
                                               contractors who are
                                               receiving compensatlon~
            Dear’‘iI9O Cox:                    from the uuited States.
                       You have requested the opinion of this of-..
            tlce~ on the following questions:
             .
                            Is it In violation  of the’Constitutlen
            to employ kd pay a art-time       employee. at the Big
                                  P
            Spring Statue Hosplta who is also drawing pay as an
            enlisted man in the armed services of the United
            States?
                       2. Is it in violation  of the Constitution
            to retain on our payroll a doctor who in no way neg-
            lects his duties to the State of Texas but who does
            after duty hours, act as an lndcpendent contractor )or
            the Veterans Administration (in this IdStanCe Di’. Rap
            C. Sloan of the Big Sprlng State Hospital)’ without
            monetary profit being received from the Veterans A&al&
            istratlon. f.or his services?
                      3* If your answer ‘to quest%on nQo@er two
            above Is In the afflr~matlvep .would 'It ‘differ. If Dr.
            t;yn; drew oompensatlon from the Veterans Admlnbtra-

                       4,  I8 it In violation  of the Constltutlem        .” ‘..
            for the Big Spring State Hospital to utlllse   the aer--~    .. .,,~.
            vices. of an Independent contractor and pay him not as
            an employee but on a purchase* vouoher, when such a per-
            ron 18 on the    yr&l$ of the Veterans Admlnlstratlon
            as an employee I@    e 09 Dr. Ca W. Atherton.)
HOII. Lury   0, Cox, page 2 (v-1527)

             5. .Is It in violation of the Constltutien
,.for the B$g ‘Spring State Hospital to utlllee  the ser-
  vices of an independent contractor and pay him not a8
  an employee but on a purchase voucher, when such a
  person is in private practice and 1s not an employee
  of the Veterans Administration but does draw compensa-
  tion from the Veterans Administration as an independ-
  ent contractor as consultant?    (E@g.,Br. J. C. Banker.)
            6. Is It In violation   of the Constitution
 for the Rexla State School and Hometo retain on Its
 payrolL four employees who are ex-servicemen of World
‘War 11, who are attending Veterans .4dminlstratlon
 School at night and of course, drawing compensation
 from the Veterans Aiminlstratlon for such training?
                                     .
            7. In construlng both Sections 33’.and~40
 of Article XVI0 is it unconstitutional   t6 employ any
 of the above categories’of   persons when they are pres:
 ently In the Rational Guard, the Rational Guard Re- ‘
 serve9. or the Organized Re.serves of the United States?
          .There are three se&ions of Article xVI’of
the Texas Constitution which .relate to,the subjeot  :
matter. of these que~st1ons.a Seotlon 12 statea:
            “lo memberof Congress nor person
      holding or exercising any o!flce of profit
      or trust   under the United States, er el-
      ther of .Ihem, ‘or umder amy foreign power,
      shall be elig%ble as a notuber of the Leg-
      irlature   or hold er exercise any offloo
      of proi    or trust under this 'State.n
section   33 provides:
            “The Accounting Officers of thi.s
      Stats shall.rrelther draw nor pay a warrant
      upon the Treasury in favor OS any person
      for salary or comp6nsatl,oa ,a8 agent, offi-
      ce*. or appointee who holds at the same
      time any other ojflce    or position of honor,
      *rust or profit,    under this State or the
      unlted States, excrpt.as prescribed In this
      Constitution.    Provided, that this restric-
      tion as to the drawing .aud paylmg af’ war-
      rants upon the Treasury shall not apply to
      officera of tbs National Guard of Texas,
.   ,   -

            Hon. Larry 0. Cox, page 3      (V-1527)

                 the National Guard Reserve, the Offi-
                 cersReserve     Corps of the United States,
                 nor to enlisted    men ~of then National
                 Guard, the Kational Guard Reserve, and
                 the ‘Organized Reserves of the United
                 States, nor to retired     officers   of the
                 United States Army9 Navy? and Marine
                 Corps, and retired ~warrant ,offlcers     ,and~.
                 retired  enlisted   man of ,thp ,united
                 States Army9 Navy,’ a,dd Marine Corp~~.~’.“.
                                                   7
            And Section 40 says:’
                        “No person shall hold or exercise,
                 at then same time, more ‘than one Civil
                 Office of emolument, except that of Jus-
                 tice of Peace, County Commissioner        No-
                 tary Public and Postmaster 0 . . a JGlus
                 the same mjlitary    personnel listed    in
                 Section 33/$ unless otherwise specially
                 provided herein.     Provided,.that    nothing
                 In this Constitution-shall      be construed
                 to prohibit    . 0 u             itary per-
                 sonnel listed    in Section 3      from hold-
                 ing in conjunctionwith      such office    any
                 other office .or posl,tion of, honor, trust
                 or profit 9 under ‘this State or the .,
                 United States,    or from voting at any
                 Election;   General, SpeciaJ-.or Primary
                 in this State when otherwise qualified.”
                        Thus Section 12 prohibits      a person from
            holding *any~o %fice of profit     or trust” ,knder the
            State of Texqs if thst person holds such an office
            under the United States,. another state oft the Ubiol$,
            or a foreign power; section 40 prohibits        the hold-
            ing of. mere, than one llcivil  office   of’ emolument”
            whether in the state or” federal government, certain
            civil   and military   offices or positions    of “honor
            trust or profit”     excepted; and Section, 33 ,prohl.bl&s
            payments of salary or compensation from the State
            Treasury to agents, officers     or employees of the
            State’who at t.he same time hold another “office         or
            position   of honor, trust or profit”     under the state
            or federal   government) certain military      personnel
            excepted y
                       In answer to your first rqu0stion, we call
            your attention  to two opinions of-the Texas Supreme
Hon. Larry 0. Cox, page 4       (V-1527)

Court which involved the     exceptions  in favor of cer-
tain military personnel.      $ktlsenter              135
              SJ&2d 562      (, _ _,
                  euDarQ,    140 TAX. 271, 167 SiWSci

           In the first   case, Carpenter, the Chairman
and Executive Director of the Texas Unemployment Com-
pensation Commission was commissioned and on active
duty in the Army of ?.he United States as a result of
being ordered to service as an officer     of the National
Guard. The Supreme Court held that he remained an OS-
ficer of the National Guard within the meaning ofhi:
exceptions  in Sections 33 and 40 and therefore
not vscated hls~~civil office;    that ds mllltary’ap-
pointment did not violate    Section 12 of Article   XVI
of the Constitution$    and that mandamuswould lie to
oompel payment of his salary as a state officer.
           The Cramer case concerned the existence        of..
an off&e   of temporary district    judge which existence
dspeti de.d on t h e status of the regdar       judge.  The
regular judge who had ~recelved a temporary oommlsrlon
and was on ackve duty In the Army of the United States,
was held by the Supreme Court to have been ~onunissloned
in the llOfficers  Reserve Corps” within the meaning of
Sections 33 and 40.    For this reason the Court held t&it
he was excepted from,the prohibitions       of those sections,
that he had not abandoned his civil      offioe   by accepting
the commission, and that mandamuswould lie on behalf
of his successor to compel payment of the successor”8
salary as temporary judge.     The Court expressly     pointed
out that the exceptions    to Seotlonsjj    and 40 are not
limited by but must control, Section 12:
            3qbny other construction      would render
     the amendments to Sections 33 and 40 mean-
     inglese,    and would mean that the4r adoption
     by the people was an idle gesture.           Then,
     too    if it be contended that the amendmenta
     to Sections 33 and 40 are in conflict          wlth
     Section 12 of Article        1.6, it must ba noted
     that such amended seations,         Nos.,33 and !+O,
     are the latest      expression    of the will of
     the people, and any provision@ of the Con-
     stitution    prevfously    exlrting   must, In case
     OS conflict,      ield to them. State v. Brown-
     son, 94 Tex. t 36, 61 S.W. 3.143 Gillespie         v’.
     Li htfoot     103 Tex. 359,.127 S.W. 799."
     (1%7 S,W.Jd at 152.)
Hon. Larry 0. Coxb page 5           (V-1527)

             Pour opinion  request and accompanying corre-
spondence describe     the enlisted men referred:to in your
first   question   as llpart-tlme    .emplopeeson   The Assistant
Auditor describes them as “part-time  attendants.”    We
conclude that the nature of their relationship    with the
State is that of employment rather than a relationship
in the nature of an 810ffice,a and, therefore,    that none
of. them hold “an office  of profitTor* trustl~ or~‘“a civil
office  of emolument” wlthln the prohibition8    of Sec-
t.ions 12 and 40 res eetively.      Att’y Gen. Ops: V-303
(1947.) d-5349 f19b3vo Cf. Lowe v. Statq, 83 Tex.                   .
Grim. i34, 201 S,W. 986 (19lm.
              However, each of these enlisted   men receives
from the State salary or conpensatlon       as an employee,
and this of,flce has construed the term “appolntee,8’ as
used in’section      33, to ba a synonym of the term employ-
      * Attly Gen. 0~:. O-2607 (1940)e Therefore     the pro-
Elktidn      of Section 33 mayyapply to these emiloyees
depending on thk gnswers to two.?remaining questions~’ Is
their *‘enlisted. status a ilposltkon of ?honor/: trust or
profit,,. under * 0 . the United States”?       If their hen-
listed    status is such a position,   are any of these men
within the exceptional      categories enumerated In Sec-
tion 33?
             There are no judiclel    authorities  tn point on
the first     question,  ‘The Carnenter and’cramer, cases both
 concerned commissioned officers.       But this office   ha8
.previously    held that Section 33 prohibited    payment of
 twelve days 1’“vacation pay” to an enlisted      man who was
 “drafted   for service in the United States Army” from
 State employment 0 Attly Gen.Cp..G-3335 (1941). After
 quoting Section 33, that opinion concludes:
            ~~ItFrom the above It Is clear,   without
        argument; that sunless a man falls    within
        o*~e,$f