The opinion
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
~a.NMN
ATWUU-
Bon. lkm A. Orarm
county Auditor
afcL8nnsn comty
vaoo, Taxar
whsmln
county In oonn4otid with &tlill4 f5139, RmTlaad civil
Btatutea, 1925; ,X+-N
\~ nqulriyartSoularly ~8 to
(1) whstbr-.6r pot'distSlot jtulg4in&ma courtr al-a
located fn$faLknnan Uounty are entitle6 to $1,500
addltlon8lkuilkal aaldrlrS~.~ortheir arrvlo4a as
megbere or thq County Juvenllo Board$ (2) if t&a
distal-+ Judgis a- WitLo& to euoh eomponsation,
irod Matifbeglnklne\date.ohoult8the ralariw be oal-
judgee am ent Itled to
~ofma3a#lonor*11oourt
aisomtion In dr-
paymant.
t&r populat%on oi
1930
44~~3, tea,
In robtplnwbsra, 98,000. Rut tha United Stataa
orriotii-c4nsu~ Of I.940 ahowe the popu3atlon Of
XaLaman ,Couaty tagbe 101,824. IQrth4r, ,that th
19~~3census rlgurer ror MoLsnnan county wem pub-
llehad by the 04~4~4 tliatritdi sup4rYleor on or
about June 28, 19&O, and that imnwllatsly follow-
ing the publiaatioa of therm oanaua figures, prs-
llainary dimuseione warn entered into and plane
Hon. Tom A. Craven, pqs 2
nude by the dlatriot 'judgesarr4otea, and the county
Judgr or MoLennan cgunty, relativr to the runotioniug
or a county 31~4nllr board for YoLennan Gountr a4 pro-
vided under Artiols 5139) R&sd Civ,llStatutes, and
the euooeediag,artlolrs. Tbat on August 26, oitloers
of such boara were dasignatod and other organization
details attended to ~with all al&lb14 membrrr of th4
board psrtlo ipatlxq.
Art.10145139, Rsvisrd Civil Statutrs of Texae,
1925, reads aa.follonst
"IIIany county having a~population of
on4 imnar4ath0ue8ta a. or fmr, 8 ccord ing to
the preoedln& Federal oen8utv,the judge6 ot
the aeveraLdiatrlot and oriixlualdistrict
court6 of suoh oounty, ~togetherwith the
ocmnty judge of auoh oouatp~,are hereby
oonstitut4a a Juvsnile Board ,ror-such
oounty. The annual salary of.eaoh of,the
judges of the oivllaad oriiniualdistrlot
court8 or euoh oounty a8 members or..aald
board ahall be $L~fOO~5.uaddition to that
paid the othar distrlot judges of the state,
said additional salary to be paid monthly
out or the general funds oi such oounty,
upon the order of the commieslouers o0urt.4
ie have oarefal~y studied the above atatute
and have mad4 a march or the authoritfas nhloh beer
upon the aub$aotmattor in OOutroVeray, and ws have
particularly searoh4d.the droieiona and opinions~oi the
auperlor courts nlative to their citings upon tb
constitutionality and application of the .above quoted
statute. W4 have,-foundthe leading cas4lu Taxes to
be that of Jones v. Alexander, 59 S. W. (26) 1080,
OphiCSI by hudg4 Sharp Of the Cbti~SiOn Or AppWti
and adoptedby.the Supreme Court of Texas.
We quote from that opinion a8 followa:
.
.-
604
Hon. Tom A. Craven, page 3
(at page 1082)
Wsing the plain lauguage or the
Constitution, which provides that the
dlstriot court shall have ‘orl~lual
jurisdiction and gemral oontrol over
tinors under auoh raguletlons as
46; ie prescribed by law, * a8 a basis upon
which to plent the validity of artlole
5139 et seq., which isposee eaaltioual
duties upon district judges in oertain
counties for whioh extra compensation
will be allowed, and when coneidarea
in connadtilonwith the stvuylagis1ative
aots Imposing many othsr duties not striat-
ly judicial upozidistrict judges ena the
decisions or our ccurts bearimz uoon t&la
question, we ,are unable to find shy sound
reason for holding that this Oat oontra-
venes section 40 of artiol~e16 of the
ocstitution or of ang other provision
of the Constitutlon.l*(Our enphasie)
(at pega 1083)
*The Ccustituticn has pLa06a no
liaitation upon the LeCiBlature as to the
amount of salaries to be paid district
juagee. frh6rer0m. tttsLe@slatura has
a right to ‘cam anysot lowaring or raising
tha salarlee of dlstriot judgea. In rixing
the amount of mch salarles, the Legisla-
tura map t&e into consideration the popu-
lat ion and size of t\e county, ite taxable
valuat3,3na the gsnaral conditions existing
therein. The Legislature in this instanoe
h&s men fit to plaoe certain additional
duties upon the district judges In certain
counties and ha8 allowed extra oompensatlon
ror suoh service. In doiug this, the Legis-
lature acted clearly within its ooGetitu-
tional pmars. Clark v. FInlay, 93 Tax.
171, 54 3. V. 343, 346.*
Hon. Tom A. Craven, page 4
Subsequent to the date that the c.a~eof
Joues v. Alexadder was passed upon by the Commla-
sion of Appeals .or Texan au? therearter adopted by
the Texas Supreme Court, the case of Holland v.
;Bgr;g C,oule~(103 S. W. (26) 1067) waa appaaled
of Civil AppeaLa ror the Ffret Supreme
Judicial Diatrlct of Texas at Galveston, Texas. The
Rolland odse involved the quamtion of whether or not
a especial dlstriot judge” would be entitled to re-
cover in addition to the regular pay of the dietrlct
judge an additional amount of money as a member of the
Juvenile Board upon a per diem basle under authority
of Article 6821 of the Revised Civil Statutes. Thl~
case netiesaarilyInvolved the construction of Artiole
5139, Revised Civil Stetutea, in conneotlon with
Article 6821,.
During the time the Holland oaae .WM pending :
in the Blret Court of Civil Apma certlded~ quea-
tlon was aubxltted fran that oourt to the Supreme Court ‘, I
pertinent to the questions involved in that controversy.
Judge Gerinan,a nember or the Oommlaslon of Appeals, in
Ns opinion, whlah was aubeequently adopted bJr the
Suprenm Court of Texas, in detemltig the questlom ~i
presented to the ,aourt, wrote as followe:
(102~s. W. (Zd) ~196;at page 197)
“. . . We think thawquestion le
~..
settled by the plain,lanwage or the \
atetute (Artlole 5139, Revised Civil
Statutes) In light of the dealsion la
the aase of Sonee v. Alexander, . . .
,~(parentheeeafours)
“The oonstltutionalltg of this
artic&e was upheld In thr case of Jones
v. Arexander, supra.~ The underlying
prlnclpln up03 whlcb the law was sustained
was the right of the Legislature to Xrnpoee
upon distrlat.judgea additional duties and
labors, not judicial in charaoter, and be-
oause of suoh Imposed addltional dutlee to
increase their .salarieein a mauuer Oonmelb
606
.
Hon. Ton A. Craven, pagr 5
surata &th ihe aerriaes to be periomed.
The languagg of tbs opinion olearlp indl-
aates th’atthe statute was construed ee
eetabliahing t&s annual salarle8 of dlrr-
triot,5udger In oountiea having a 5uvenllr
board at a sum $1,500 psr year higher than
the salaries paid judgea who were not
members of such a board; and not 80 mera
addltbnal oonpenaatlon paid to euoh
jadgas ror servlcse as members of the 5uvcrn-
,110 board. It aee!nato be the,olear import
or the tatatuteto fix one ealary of euoh
judges anKnot merely to per .themthe salary
paid other judges and in add.ltlonto pay
them ooapensation ot $1,500 per year for
aotlng as meabere ot the $menlle board.
Viethink the purpoee~was not to pay thea
$1,500 aa members or,the juvenile,board,
but to inoreaae their salaries $1,500 per
year became of the addltlonal duties and
labors. Thice$1,500 la a part of their pay
as dlstrlot judgS& Thla being true, It
followa that under article 6821 the special
judge Is entltle,dto receive the *sane pap’~
am the regular district judge In whose be-~
halt he 8erves.”
Thersrore, In light of the,wording of the
atatuta aul the holdings or the Supreme Court or Texas
relevant to Its applloation, and the facts preeentrd to
us showing tha,tMoLeman -Countyla now a County with a
population In exceaa or 100,000 persona, we aacordlngly
advise you a$ follows:
1. In anawer to your flret queetlan, you
are advlsei,.thatIt is the oplnlon of ,&his depertmnt
that the additional suniot’$l,500 per year should be
allowed the regular judges of MoLeman County.
2. ThL department haa held in lte opinion
No. O-2337 addressed to the Hon. E. 0. Moaely, Clvfl
Dlstrlot Attorney,~,Dallaa,Taxas, thet the 1960 oear3ua
.
Hon. Tom A. Crevan, page 6
would bscose controlling when the figures were oom-
Filed sod ziade available to tha wbllo. It lm there-~
fore tke oplqlon ot this department that tha Dlatriot
Judges of LloLennab County era entitled to such coapen-
saticn beglnnlag ae of the date that ZiTdoLennen
County
quallfled under the etetuta aa being a county %evlng
a population of one hundred thousend or over,*
3. It is the opinion or this depmrtrnt that
the Comiisoioner’s Court cr KcLsnnaa County has no
legal~basis ror sxeroir?w a disars&ioa in datamining
nhetber or not to order the pmyment or the edditlonel
mount specified In tim statute.
Trusting thet the above estltvfaatorll~ enewera
your queetlan.9, -we are,
8