Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorable Gee. 19. iheppard Coiugtrollerof Zublio z,eoounte Austin ) Texas Sear Jr: 1939, you direct quest our ojdn frm in :Latego lng the axiete reads in part: on and aer- clnd property in said dls- ordsnce aith Seotion 10 I or the stntc constitu- tion &all be, and are hereby relaased for s period of twenty-f lvs (25) years iishereinafter provided, from the gay- ant or tares levied for State purpxss ln said two dletricts 2s ioliows: “1. * ,A1 of the ttats ad valorss Honorable Coo. i3. Sheppard, gagu 2 taxas levlcd SOS State ?urgosee a~oinat thr inhabitant8 end property in com- mi8sloners ~rsclncts Nos. one, two and tour or &taC;orda county curd &n ail or ..hwton County, including the roiling stock belonging to railroad com~anles, which shall be ascertained and a?por- tlQned a3 ?rovlded by law. wiec. 3. The tax es3083ors 0r said county or ir;utsgorda and eald county 0r :#harton,3hall each, respeo- tively, awes8 ror taxetion the pop- arty end geraom, firm, cospanles end assoclatisns of persons la their re- speotive districts above derinsd in the usuel muher as required by ltw, am2 the tax coilectors of each of said countlee shall, or sbail not, collect the said Ctnte taxes, in said dietricte, a3 he my be ordered end directed to do by the Comptroller of ?ubllc i&``uhts ti3herelnufter pmvlded.” The imt also provided that such relief should he conditioned upon the voters ) resfdfng ln the aifeoted >reolnots, voting an issue or bond8 at least equal to the anout of taxes released. It 1s our understanding that the bon.18were voted. Jencite3111 No. 261, chapter 162, F.egular :ea- slon, JiithLoglelature, wae very slnilar to said tienate 3111 X0. 54, except that said kenate Bill No. 2.U released the ichabitehtu and property in the oounty of Hidalgo from the sayrc-ntof ;tate ad v&lores taxes for A gerlcd of 45 years, euah release covering the whole of H$dal@ County instead of only three precincts a3 was the case or tbs ktagorda County release. In the oaso of Sheppard v. hidal~o Co&&y, 821,. 17..(Ed) 649, the Supreme Court, ln cln opinion by Judge .Geman, Co.mlssloner, held thi t said ;ehate 3lil No. 281, the Hidalgo County release, ~23 void; however, House 3111 No. 101, chapter 4G1, =aga 1594, Firat ahd ;,;c,or;d Gail-d ,aasions, 44th Legislature, a??arently repaved the questions resulting in such holding, and on aotlon for rehearins the Gupraxe Court, ctillingattentlou &&able Geo. H. Shospard, page 3 to said ~ioi~34 Sill No. 101, in 90 5. 2;. (2d) 811, wlth- drew its said fOr%r opinion. The 44th Leglelature, in Iiouse all1 No. 114, chapter 402, pago 1598, First and second Called Sesslxm, 44th Legislature, xade en mended grant of the State ad valoreg tax4s collected in preclnctx Nos. 1, 2 and 4 Sor the purpose of resavkg the questions thua rtilsedby the Suprese Court in its o;lnion in 83 5;.; . :I-“’ 049* ‘Y,e shall assusie,however, tbat said Senate 9111 0. 54 was conetltutlonal. In our oglnion No. O-287 ,~addressed to Honorable George ii.SheQperd, Congtroller of :‘ubLlc.kccouhts,we held that the Sthto WYS not due to gay auy of ths assetm- xmt, fees accruing in hidalgo County during the period ihr\tsaid Senate 3111 No. 281 was in force, except the Qro rata amountsdue by ths pension and school funds. Env- ever, in that oplhlon we csllod attention to Article 3538, zevlsed Civil Lt-tutes, providing that: “Tha Co;nptroller,on receipt of the rolls, shall give the assessor an order on the collector .of hla county for the amount due his by the State for tisdesalng the Sate taxes to be paid out of the fir-t money collected ror that year,” ;indpointed out that since all of the ;taze ad valorem taxes levied for State purposes in that county had been. released, there was no fund such as that contesplsted by said krtlcle 3938, out of which the assoessent fees or- dinarily paid by the State could be drawn, onlees it should be said that all of such cozUsslons should be Qald out of the school fund or pension fund. Since the school and pension funds are axpressly ?mvlded by Con- stiiution (..ztlcleVIII, sectlm 9, aud zticle III, section 31) b,edid not believe tbiit lc i(as contemplated that the share of the assessment costs ordinsrlly paid out of the taxes collected for the State’Y seaera f;md, should be xet by withdrawals from the school au46geneion funds. Forever, in thencase of Eatagorda County, the ;tcte ad vaiorerntaxes were not released in precinct No. Z; hence, there WCS a fund out .~f which tko Ststo’s share cf the tisseement coats could be ;ald as 2mvlded by sold ..rticla3938. In view of such fact, w do mt believe it can be said zht it was contrz?iat&d tti-*, the couuty fun.: shguid bear my more than its uauvi sLre of the ``3;s. bstiti-es;ent The county funds received no accre- ;lons by :eason of the release of the inhabit+mts ehd . , Honorable Gto. ii.“htigard, page 4 gro;jtrty in psclncts Nos. 1, Z and 4 from the gaymtnt 0r the state ad valortm tAxeD. Our answer to your qutatlon, therefore, is that the state should have ?ald the uamt part of the aaatwmnt fees as it would have paid ii Senate 3111 No. 54 bad never betn enacted. (sitcned) au Glenn 2. Lewis i&slstsnt