Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )

Honorable P. J.X088 County Auditor Yontaguur, Temm DCMUsir1 fn your lottor or you request our 0tm or uontagua the f’undrof person employed ution by the oounty ram whiah garmentr would be mada 1 ributlon to poor epe0lriOally 80 asmua.ed a8 a taot that the mwlng roonm generally es am to beoome publio terminated. Also, that given are unable to eraitie8 or me. our sslonerr~ Court to that err00t. 8, oi Artio’le18 or that dooument read88 *aso. 6. Baoh oounty in the Stat. may provldm in crushmanner aa may bo promorlbed by law, a Unnuai Labor poor noun aad mrm, rm taking oar0 or, numaging, ample irg snb supplying tba want6 of its lntllgent and poor I nhabltants.w Eonorable y. J. Moss, Fagagr2 section t or Arti0h 11 th0re0r ~~-0~id881 "sea. t, The osnrrtruotionof ialla, courthou8er and brfd@8 and the establf sbment of oounty poor house8 and mm8, and the lay& out oonstruotlon and repairing of county roads ahall be provjded for by general laws,* In Seydler V. Border, 118 8, ;V, (26) 702, error refused, the oon8tltutionallty or the 8tltut80 ‘authotizil@ the oon8tnaotion of oounty hoapltals was suetalnod, The oare and treatmnt or the slak wa8 thsre held to be 8 pub110 purpoeo a8 dlrtinyiehad from a private ore end a proper subjeot tar the expenditure or oounty funds. Ba4, on June S!b* 1940, id the case of The i!ouaingAuthority of the C$ty of Uallar T, Elcginbotham, et al., not yet reported, in:an opinion by Jud&e Slatton, Coamisaloner, the 3upreme Court held oonetltu- tional the Texar Eousirg kuthoritiee Law, hrtlolo 1269k, Vernon'8 Ciril Statutes. It was there determined that the provision of decent dwblllr,gsaixlother living aooomodatione ior persons of low lnoom is a public purpose sod that pub110 funds my be used to ~aoqulrebulldig sites and ereot thereon dwelling aocomodatlons to be rented at low rates to poor people. &ginning at pqg 851 of the ,?eporteof Attorney General Looney, 1916-1918, wo find an oplnlon written by tha late Chlsf Snetlos C. Ii!.Cureton, then Plrat Assistant Attorney General, sustaining the oonstltutlonality of ii, 3. ITo,18, Ch. 4, p. 4, :;ots35th Leg., 4th C. S., authori,zlnqthe ooun- tier to expend their general funds for the purohaee of plantlag seed which would then be sold on cxtdlt to rseidqcts or such oountlea who were poor and unable to prooure sueh seed. It war Judge Curstonfe opinion that tha purpose of uuah expenditure was a publlo one. T&e purpose ror whloh your Comi.sslont?re~Court propo8e8 to use these fund8 ir unquestionably a pub110 one within Artiole 8, Yeotion 3, of our Constitution. Howarer , thi8 does not neoedsarlly nsan that the expenditure aan bo laaA6. For, it ha8 been hrld by ov oourt8 my times that Comdmloners* Courts are of llnlted jurlsdlotlon only an& am without any ponrr eroept thosr cOni8rred upon them expressly or by naoessary tiplioationr El Paso County f. Elam, 106 3. w. (ad) 393; Howard T. Eendorson County, 116 s, ‘Is.[ad) 479t Hill County v. Styant, 864 9. XI 5801 Contra. court 0r mdlson County v. ::allaoe,15 S. W. (26) 535. We shall attempt to deternine whether the Conmisslonerrr* Court ha8 the neoeeaary authority to direat this eXp+ndltuI'e. f- ,, - ~, _~,.~ ~. ..-. .~ . 353 Xouorable F. J. Yore, Page 5 In Our opinion the raOt8 abore stated and ati8WUBdto be true would support a flndlng of the Conmlssloners~ Court that the employees in the sswim3 room, as well aa those reoelr- ing the artfo~er of olothlag, are 80 needy and dependent as to oome within the authority prorlded in section 11. of Artlole 23S1, ~8'Yi88dCiVil %iltUt@S. COn8ib8ring the hwitarlan pur;pose OS this statute, we do not believe it should be given a SereM~Md lIteraL oon- 8truotlon. Rathsr, lt Should be &ven at least a f&lrly llbanl oon8truotlon to the end that its wholly desirable purposes ehall at batit be po8slbla or aohl8rem8nt. The,oounty*tigeneral fund has ft.8 sareguardr. Seation 9, ArtlcLe 8, or the;Con8tltutlon, limits the ad rtiorem tax for &W3ral oounty purpOee8 to twenty- fire oents on the hundred dollars valuatfon, and it mag also be rsnuaed that the county oommI8sloners will be fIxgal and careful !n making euoh e~ndltures. We do not believe that the statute was meant to requlra a man to be reduoed to pauperism In the starkest neanlni;OZ the word before aaefstacoe my be ertsndad to him. These proJeot8 known as Vi.P. A. sewing roOm aotually dispense aid in two torm8: (I) Ulreot aid to those who reoelTe the garzents, and (2) Indirect aid In the way or employment for the vmmefioperatic the tnacbinrr, Article 2351 does not rspuire the arslstanoe to be given in any artloular manner. In many instanoer it will be moh mre whoP 88~8 and dewlrabt8 for it to be glvbn in the nature or employment. !&rthermore, wo do not believe that a oo&ty*a abllga- tlon to extend ala is naoeaearily destroyed the momect the Federal Governmnt gfYe8 its aesistanoe. rhere IS nothIn% t0 prevent the oounty from providing ror a part of suoh supcart, the Federal Government aleo oontrlbutlng. Xi the Comrnleaionars~ Court find8 that those to whom the clothes are given are deptin- dent upon public relief, elth8r direct or lndlreot, ror llvln& &eoeseltles, or that the sewing room employees would probably beooue aubjetota of dlreot teller II the proJeots should br terminated, in our opinion the oontribution rec,usatedof the Oounty may be zad8. our oplnlon, or aoume, would be to the Wntrary if tho i%XtImf88fOMr8 * Court fin&S that suoh facts aro not true. 354 Ronorable P. J. Moss, Page 4 This opinion is in aoaord with our conference opinion No. 3099, whfoh we believe to be oorreot. Our opinion No. O-2333 was gireo upon an inaompfets atatenentand understanding of the faots and is withdrawn, and llkewlse that part of opinion No. O-1972, holding that oomisoioners~ courts may not purohaee or rent sewing mahines for use in suoh ii. F. A. sewlag roomd. Youra very thlly ,, APPROVErJUL 3, 1940 ATTORNEY GEKERAL OF TEXAS i-~, ~