Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1941 )

IlonorableVi.R. Chambers,Chairman
AgriaulturalCommittee
Eausa,of Representatives
Austin, T E X ,A3
.
Dear'Rirr OpinionNo. O-3106
Rer Canstitutianalityof Qousa Bill
Do. 138, Forty-SeventhLegia-
l&are.
We acknowledgereoeiptof your-vaguestfor aur
opinionupan'the oonstitutionality of Rouse DILL ~0. 136,
now before your cozzaittee.Tht~aapg al:the Dfll acaoapw-
ing your request is at3followar
"EGJSZB-iLLNO. 136
*To pramote, enoourag6,increaseend 3tinulate
the use and ealo of rioe; to promote the.prasperl.ty
end welfare OS the rim grawero and producersIn
the State of Texaril
throughthe oanduuctfng of a
publicity,aaZes promtlon.and developmentca5paiRn;
,ba canduot researohin aad develop new uses for
rice and rise praduotsito levy and tipoaea tax
or assessmenton rice milled in'the State of Taxam,
and to protide Sor the oolleationthereof 80
creats'ar?ae dwelopment fund; to createa rice
developnmntcomal.s~l~n to adalrristerand to can-
tral the rZoe dovelogmnt oamgaiyl,and to gzo-
%ide tho pawers, dutiesand authorityand to do-
fins the terms of.offioeof mid oocimistion; to
provide when end how said lorp ar tax .ahallbe
paid and a0iiaati3a;to praviae penaltiesfor the
violationof this Aot) to provfda-forcooperation
and Joint aatian in aald developmentoa5paign
with offioers,boards,oomal6r~lons, departneots
or other autharitloaoreatedor which may ,be.
lianorable W. R. Chainbe&, page 2
oreatedIn the States ai LouIslanaand Arkaneaa
upon whIah &r.ilarpaworB, duties.ana pwposss
have been or may be cotierred;to repealall
laws or parts or luwa in aoafllotherewith;rix-
In&the oiieatlvedate or the Aotl and dealarlng
an omergenepc
"RIC3 D%VZlxPXEBTCOWi!IS~IOH
- SHORT TITLF
"Sootionlc That th3.ssbull be knwn and oitod
. CommIsJlon Law;' whIoh ahall
ae'tho ViIae Devolopnrsnt
be added as Ctipter12, Artlola 1654 to Title 4 or
the DovIsed Cltil Statutesof Torus.
*Seotion26 That there la horoby araat58a a
P3ae DevolapmentComaIssIonfor the State ai Torus,
whiah shall be aompasedof five persan6,not lea8
than three of wham shall be'rtae grawersand twa
of whom famybe rIae millers to be appalntodiar
two year terms by the Gavernar or thIs,State
with the adviaa and aonaent OS the Senate. fn
appointingthe CammIssIon,oonsideratlanshall be
,. given to reaommondationa af persona engagedIn
the rice Industry,and na person shall be appointed
to meaberehip on the Cammis%Ionwho Ianat
afrwtly ftw3rittttsa In oitbar the grawing ox
mIllIng ot rIa0.
"DEFINITIONOF TEDS&
“Section 3. Sliatthe terms u8od In this Aot
shall be definedaa iollawst
.
*The term ~mIl.l.ed
rIoet DWUUI rIae whIah haa
been hulled and framwhLah the germ and all or a
part of the bran hae been remare&.andmay be
either whole or broken, aaatod or I.uWatsd. The
termwIll also inalude 'brawn rIaev'whIohmean8
rIae that has baen hulled adi tram whiah the
gimtland branha'snat been t-tvea,
"'
*The toma tgrawertor 'rloe grower' ahall
noan and Include only those who are aotually
engage& In growingaud produaingriae and wha '
&al.1 not be engaged either dIreatlgor inbireotly
2
‘-.l--'Z
.._.i
. - ’
Eonorablo 34.R. Chambers,Page 3
or have any conmction wfth the milling of rice
exoept as members of a grower aooperativeasso&-
tion.
9.h~ term 'rice miller* shall mean and in-
OlUde all pm3ons fir,m,und oorporationswho
ehall mill rice wklu the State of Texas.
"CRWi!ION.'COLUCTIONAKD D.% Cy M?m
.*Seetlon4,. That there is hereby assessed
a tax or tvrooenta per huhdred pounda on all
milleb rice which 15 milled in the State of
Texas on ahd after the rirst day or .ug~str
a'fterthe Leglelatureof Louialanaand Arkansas
5!1all have adopteda statute~&Alar to this
statute,asses51ng.atax or not leas than two
oents per hundredpounda on milled rloe in
said States and oreatingsimilarOOtiBSiOnSi
boards, dapartmsntaor other authorltieain
said States having slnilar power8 and pur-
poses, or vesting suah peers and purposes
in orricers,aoxmlsslon5,boarda,departments
or other at#&.oritiss already.created In suob
States,
"Seption3i That aaZd tax shall be
paid by all rkm millers in the State or Texas
on all rice m.illed.ln the Stat@ of Texas and
ahallbe payablewithin the flrat ten deya of
eaoh~xonthfor all rioe milled during the
preaedihgcalendarmonth whioh tax shall be
remitteddireot to.the Rice DevelopmentCom-
mi3sion hereby oreatedl.Any rioe miller
faili~ to pay s&l tax wlthlnthe time.
speoiiledandas hereinrequired eballpap
a peaalty or ten par cent or the amount dU5i
plus one per sent-permonth for eaoh apd
every rmnth in whlah said tax is not paid,
._ ...'
%Seotion6, That the Rice Development
Commfesfonhereby dreatedshall have authority
to oheok and examinethe books ~a~re0ords or
all rise nlllersat all reasonable times dur-
ing bushees hours, ana take copies or the
sam8, in order that it may colleat the full
amunt or the tax herewGler,.andshall Oave
.*:,-
.;...
- tj.~_
po33r to Slla any wit Or uutts or taks :cy Other.
nation8 h4oessnryto form aolleationor Fayr,ent
or the 3~2.3.The said Cortiasionis author%zsd
to make OUOC regulatlodsaa my be nsoessaryto
carry Out th4 pzvers vested in it by this ?,ot.
-Any pwson refulrod to ketapany recordsor
sup::lyz2r.y
5.nfomAat10nfor the ~ur;osasof the
computationof the amunt.3 iiue u&3r this i:ct,
who wilfullyf'ttlcto keep xoh rrcord3or 3upply
suoh fuformtion nhal.1 be guilty of a zlsdo~
manor and upon convictionthereofbe riced not
xore than $500, or fnprisohedfor more than six
months, or both, tOgetb4rntth "h,eco&s of
p~oaeoution. :
"Sectfon7. That the Rice Demloyni4ntCo%-
tistfon hereby are3tsdshall have full authority
to spepd oaid funds 80 collectedin tbe aWnis=
tl%tlOE Oi'this Act end ir:the pMJOtfOG Of calas
of rice wl rice products,and for rejosrcbin and,
devolog~4ntof r4w uaez for rios ICC rice p.r3auota,.
and ob&ll oooperateand act jofntlgwith comls-
tJ1008,~carda* dspatit;centa
or other wrthoritios
having siA.lar7ow3rs and purpomm, crosltetlox
bp statutesof the States oi
uhloh 3%~ be .erz+ated
Lou.isi~~~s
and Arkaneaa,ana said ~ocey my be
expandedin a joint &fort by th4'thxe4state'
oo~~&saio~, boaras, dqartffients or authorities.
fioaum4 books sna r4cjra3 2bil '04wntu4a 3t
all tlmea, refleotingtheoperations of the Con-
mission; ad szoh books Ond rscordsshall be avail.-
able for public audit and fns~eotion.
Woction 0. T-tit:&aidCormnis&i.on shall
&?m without pay exoept the mvab4rsthereof sh011
-1. reoelve ten dollars per da for evsry day aotuciUy
expsndedin conaeotionniti their duties,as pro- .
viaed for aid ,authorizod J\Ct.
by thi;ie plus
act-1 exgsnseaLnourred,bythen in csnneatioh" . *,‘
with auoh dutiee. ~' ..
"ORS'XI~lXQH A.NI"AmmtiITY
"Seotiqal 9. That the &id Comnisaioi&all
eleot froa among l.taneabera 3 chalmmn, a vioe-
'ob.niman,a aeoretarg,3nd a treasurer;3ny two ,
..
. . .
HonorablePi.B. Chenbers, page 5
of whiah oi'tioss,except that of cheirman,may
be held by one parson. The Conmlasioashall
_ heve authorityto select a manager and all othar
personsnecessaryto carry out and adrnlnister c
this Act, in oonnootionwith the Louisianaand .,
ArkansesConrsiisziions,
boards,deportmentsor
other authorities,which msnager and other par-
BOILSshall receivesuch solery or compensetion
es the Conm~issionmey fix, plus suoh.sxpenseses
they may actuallyinour, out of runds oollectsdin
the 6dminiStratiOn of this Act.
~Seotion10. net the seid Couixisslon shall
have authorityto prescribe foams upon wbloh rice
millersshell be requiredto meke monthlyreturns
OS the rice milled end sold by them, eAd the
menner in whUh such returnashall be medeW
"Seotlon11. That this~Act shall beoome
8Sr8otlveon the first day of Augutst after the
Legislature of Lonieieneand Arkansasshall
have adopteda slmllerstatute,assessinge
tax of not less than two cents per hundredpounds
of milled rice in said States,end oreating
,s$milercoim~Isalon, Boards,.Depertmants, or
other Authorities with siml&~rpowers end
purpO8ss. The provisionsot this Seationand
oi Section4 end Section7, or eny other
Sectionor part of this Act in which the
validityof auoh Act dependsupon, or is con-
neoted with similareotlon by the ~l,e&vlatere
OS Louisianaend Arkenaas,shell be satisfied
by the oreationend vestingof such authority
in any State Otflcer,Board, Comlssion, De-
partment,or other Authorityin the States of
l.ouisiene and 3%anses, provldlngthe seae
powersare delegatedto suoh Officer,Xoard,
Coramisslon, Dapertmantor other Authority,
and providingthat a tax is levied of not
less than the amoust latiedherein tor suoh
purposes.
*Sectionle. That the areetionor a Rico
DevelOpnentcommissionror the state or Loui+
lena, levyingthe sama tax as here$n levied In
thls.stote,.forthe sema pavers and purposes, r
aAd vestingthe authorityor the Moe Develop- , ~
. .
,
. I
Xonorable3. R. Chambers,Page 6
ment Coumisaionfor Loulsisaa,under &it,Ho. 112
of the 1940 Legislature,iA the Depertcmntand
Directorof ths Departmentof Xgrioulture,the
- DePaartmntand Directorof the Departint oi
ylnahoe and +,heDePart-antand Dlreotorof the
Departzantof Revenueror the State of Louisiana
created by Act No. 47 and Act No. 48 of the
1940 Legislature,is within the terms of thlisAot,
so that this Aot shall become effectiveon the
first day or August after the Laglslatureor
Arkansas shall have adopteda statutesimilar
in purpose to this Aot, or to Aot Do. lL2 of the
1940 Legislatureof the,Stateof Louisianaand levied
a tex of not less than two cents per hundred pounds
of milled rioe ror sltilarpurposes.
"Seotion13, That all lawo or parts of laws
inconsistentor in oonfliotwlth,tha provloloasof
this Act are hereby repealed.
n§eotlon14, The Saot that presents world
ootiitionshave caused a loss of certain roreign
markets for rioe, and that the rloe tarmrs;of
Texas are in need of establlshihgmre and bet-.
ter rsarketaPor rloe and of advertisingto the
people of the 1TnltedStates the value of.rioe
as n rood,ana its use fn rood producta,and thk
urgent nsed that.- advertisingand developmetit
program be immediatelysponsoredfor the rios
growera ot Texas; and the faot thatthia Aot
end the Acts oi Iouisirthsaad Arhahsasshall
not become effeativeuntil elmlIar aats am
passed by all three states,*hhiohAothas
already been paseed by the State or Louisiana,
ana the Legislatureof the State ot Arkansas
now being in sessionor about to oonvene,
createsan emrgenay and an Imperativepublia
neaessity. h&~
that the COA8tfbltiOlrP]. XW-
'.quiriagBlllsto bsread on three separatb
days be, ana tho same is hereby suspended,‘and
th5.aAot shall take ef?eot end shalL be in
foroe on the dates protidedfor herein after
the date .oiits enaotment,and it is so.ea-
acted.*
At the outset of our oonsitderation
of your r&quest
'we are aoatrontedwith the questionoi.srhether the tax and the
_*.
._.-
'.+._'.L
' .
,>a -
_’ .
?onorable W. R. Chm&B, Page 7
approprIatIon of the revenue8 derived therefrom 8z?e for a
"pub110 purpo80” a8 requI&%d by the ConBtItutIon of this
state.
Article VIXI, SeotIoA 3 of the Texa8 Cona*Ituti.on
reads aa followsr
'Terxesshall be levied and collected by
general law8 end for publia purpoae~ only."
Artme XVI, a~otio~ 6 or the codmai~ ~~~~~~~~ :
. .
*so appropriation for private or In-
dividuol purpowa 8hall be made. . . ." ,
Sub8tmtlally the same factor8 must be considered *
In applying each of the foregoing coDstItutIoAa1 limltatlorm
and.we will therefore dl~cu~8 them together. We also note
here that the portion of the bill levying the tax, and that
deBIgAatIAg the purporre8 for wh.lch'therevenue8 therefran
may be expended are 80 clorraly related and iaseparably tied
togmther that theyoanoot be se@irated 80 th8t.0~0 might
stand and the other S&Cl. San Antonio SndepbAdeAt Soh 01
Dlstrlut v. St&e, 173 8. W. 525; 39 Tex. Jur., p. 22 ii9 and
jcase8 there cited. This ~ame.pri~oIpls Is applicable to
Section 7 of the Bill providing ths several purp08e8 for .
which the moneys my be sx?ended. It would h8rdly be
p088iblr to say that if'OA6 of the UB~B eA\mserStdtdshould
be other than a public purpose, the Leglalature would Aever-
the1088 enact the Bill with the 881&erevenue8 to be ured for
more reatrlatsdpurposea. We shall therefore COAfIne our
ooAsIde~tIon to the ,levy of the tax for the purpose of
"praaotlon of s&lea of rice and rice produc$~." The title
a&d emergaAay~alau8e of the Bill le6vea no doubt,but~that
by thl.8,it 18 IAteAbd to ff.AliAMsnd ChdUCt A publicity
and advertl8ing csplpeig~t0 pr0180t08Ad IAOCeaBO the Bale
of rioa and It8 products, It must therefore be determined .I
whethoT thl8 1B.a publio.purpo8e am that term Is employed
IA the COABtItutiOA Of Texa8.
What coABtItute8.a publio purpose or use, as dIB-
tinguiahed f'roaa private purpone, tor which taxes'may be
levied and pub110 fu~ds~expended, h8B been repeatedly before
the court8 of pracltioallyevery state in tha Union snd the
Supreme Court of the WAIted States. But no court has '
undert8ken to lay dorm with minute detail a~ insxorable
rule that would distinguish the 0110troa"tbw other. Obviously,
A0 Bush rule oould be4 lirlddown, ior iti8 a'flexlble oon-
cept whkh must be oonsldered with*.refemence to the facts,
* II) -
. . . .
ZiOAorableW. R. Chsmbe~~~, Page 8
a1ScumatBnce8, and purposes in each particular case aAd which
Elap expand and COAtLYkOtWitbthe~AeCeBBitieB tUld COl@UitieB
of life IA the democratic state. The d8CistOAa Of the
courts bEIvenot been unlfom OA this subject and It must
be recognized that the modem trend Of decision ie to give
a more liberal coA8tructIon to the term "publIo purpose*
. or uusa', hovever, this tendency b AOt Vith8Ut it8 lImIta-
tioA8.
The rule axmouaaed IA Neal V. Boog-SCott (T.C.A.j
1923), 247 S.W. 689, has loog bINA recognized.by pP8ctkally
eVWyCQU& iA themltOd 8tdOBe ?A that OaBS it 18 Btited:
.
*The qUeBtiOtl aB to vhather aa sot or
the bgtB&ture of this state vi11 serve
8. public Use OP purpOBOiB, in the f&St
inf!~tIhIltX~, a qUeBtiOll for the detention
of the ~~iBb&UPO, and thst detel3BLtrattOA
or decision cannot be reviewed &ad the:
contrary detenalned by the judlcIary except
IA ~AB~SUZCCIB where the legialatlve deter-
PllilutfOAOf the qUeStiOA is palgsbly and
wt3Btly arbitrary and Incorrect.
. -il
. . .
"Again the 1earAed author (Judge Cooiey
, .. In COnBtItUtIOA L&L), at PEgeB 128, 129,
says:
“‘ThO ~giBbitUP0 iB t0 Blakb bWB
for the public good aA@ AOt for the
b3~8fit8 Or hditidusiS~ ft ha8 COPtPOi
of the public moseys, and should provide
,.:
for dl8bur8lng then for public pWp08b8
only. T&%XOB should only be levied for
those p~J?p08e8 wNoh properly OOnstItute
a public burden. Butwbatlsfora~ .
public good, and what are publIc.pur-
poBe8, aAd Vhst d-8 prOperly COABtitUt.8
a publia bUrdsn, are qUeBtIOA8 whloh the
LegiBbbture BNBt dealdo UpOIl .%tB OVA
judg#keAt,and irrreBpe&t to which It iB
Vested with a lal'g0diBQl'OtiOAwhIeh
caAnot ba controlled by the COUl'tB,
emept perhaps where Its aotioA la
clearly ewaalve, and vhere, (mddeqpre-
tena~ of a Iswfbi authc+.& $$ has
Honorable W. R. Chambers, Page 9
assumed to exerelse OAQ thBt iB UAb3WfUl. ”
Judge coo1ql.A hi8 work on Taxation, 4th Edition,
Volume 1, SrtCtiOA 189, iA COUtlBQAtiAg
UPOA thI8 doctrlAe of
non-laterference by the judiciary, 8aId:
"These are very strong and sweep3ng
a88ertIoA8. but they are supported by
EUAY others equally emphatle and ccm-
pl.ehbABiVe,whlah al% to be met vlth in
\ the adjudlcatloIu 0r'OaurtB.-The very
emphasis, however, with which the prIn-
ciple Is declared render8 It peculiarly
lisble to miale8d, u&38x it iB examined
IA the light of the adjudicated C&BBS
IA which It baa bee~..applIed,generally
with explenntlons, and OftQA wittbnecebaary
qU81ifiCEttiOAB."
'There worn Aumerou?cearly ~&!mer ia whichdties or
pO~itiC8l:SUbdiViB~OA8 0s the state were authorized by
statute to levy texea or u8e pub110 funds to i~duca or eA-
courage industrX&l oi?manufaoturlng coAcerA8 to locate in
such BU~~~VIBIOA or by grant- finsncial aid or bOUAtie8 to
BUiXheAte~iBeB. The court8 almost without eraeptloa held
such purposes to be private rsther th8A public. IA 3avlng8
dcLoan v. Topeka City, 87 U. 9. 686, 22 Fed. 455 the
SupPeW COUPt Of the ??Aited state8 iA holding invalid boAd8
188~ed by a city to aid and eACOW&gb a company IA estab-
lishl~g end operating bridge shops in the city, held the
purpose to be-private and %A ao hol~g stetedt--
I TN8 p0wer (taxation):caa as raadlly
-. . be emrpi0;dagain8t One db88 0s lndIvidUal8 aAd
ln.favor of Btlother, 80 as to ruin the on8 CHUBB
and glve~unllmlted wealth and prosperity to the
other,.ii there $8 Ad ImplZed 1ilEitatiOAOf
tha’UBO8 for which the poweJrmay b&i exeroised.
"To lay, with one hand, the power of the
govomment on the property of the aItIzen8, and
with the other to bOBtOW It upon favored *
individxnls to aId private enterprlsea and
build Up pl’iVat.0 ?OrtUM~ iB AOAQ the lt3BB ’
. 8 robhsq because it iB doAe with the fOI¶EB
0s law and 18 called tX%xatIOA- ThLs; Is not
leglBl8tlon. It 18 a doom under legis-
~t;V~ fOmB :
,
.,.a -
R. C:~a:tbers,
Uoaorable'1;. Qago 10
n
. . .
"It ia uzdoubtedlyths duty of the
La;;islaturewhfch &poses or aut0orIzeon~~101-
palitiesto imQoss a tax, to 0.60that it is not.
to b,euaad for QurQosesoi Qrivate intamat
InetesdOS a publio usa, and tha oourts can'
mly be jmitiba in interpoeing who a
violatlsnof this gminoipleis clear and
the raasm for ihterfar0inca cogant, bnd In
dcoldiq wt.ethar, in a glven case, th0 objeot
for shiob the taxes axa asseaaedfsll8 upon
. the one side or the other ot t&Is line,
they must be gove;medmsk3.y by tie course
&id usage of the govermaat, the objeota
for which texee have been cuetonarily ard
by lone;oouma of legislationlevied,what
objcota or purpoaee nave baen coualdered
:-U2002lOG-Z~co tso supportana for t.Lwpxpr
usa of tha govazmimr;t, wimthrr Gtato OI?
~ucicipal. iilxm3ver lanfully'pcrtalilsto
this and in uonc~:loiwi b7 t2.23anci the
i3O~UlGiiQ*LLW Of tiid ~bG~ji*366 i&j Gall
bu held t; belokijto t&w yubllo usa, and
QZOps fdr.tmi I~a:zcci.aLoo or ii;osil
govilim-
zr,nt,thou,& this :zojnot be the ouly
cr1t0r10nof rI&StfultaiLat1on. .,
“aut in the cam before ua, li3 wi~lct; the
tomn are authsrizadto oootributeaid bykay
of taxatiorr to any class of namfacturar8, there
it3ii0dirfI0ult.g In hdabg that tsis ia not
such a public purpose88 w0 have been oon-
alilerhg. If It bo saI4 that a baa&It so-
8ult.sto the looal public of a town by
aatabllshisgj 3mnufacturer8, the aam Say be
ssia 0s asy other bueiaitss 02 Qursuitwhich
aqloye oapltalor labor. The mrchaAt, .
the iU3OilRUiO~ the,inn-keeper,thu banksr, the
.buiidar,t& steamboat owner are equ?mlLy
prou&ms of the Qublio good, and equally
deeervinytiiueI& of the oitizensby i‘oroe4
oontrIb*utIoAB. So line oen be drawn IA
favor of the nenufacturerwhfch would not
opn the cofferaof the QublIo treasuryto
the importudCiee of two thirds of ths
busInee8naa of the Oity or tOWoe”
. .
Xo,borable
X. d. Cho ,bsrs,Page 11
For a furthercitatiooand digust of authorltiee
to tte sati ei'lt3ct,
see Anuotetion112 d&.X. 571, where tbo
lollo~iogconaluaionis drawo by the amotator:
"The deaislonoapparentlyam a,:raed~
On tfiepxwral rli2.ethat i3~COU3Xi;cx3ant
;)r
promotionof a syccifioIndustrialezter-
prfao currFed03 by 0 privateo~~sr is oat
a publia purposefor which taxas zt?rbe
tiposad or jubllo noney ag;roprlated.
n. . .
\ ' t'+v3 couparatioe3.y faw casaa taking
tho visw that the onooura.~armrit or
~romtion of 6n hirstry a3 a rtbolale a
public purpose for which the taxLz.Cdower
my be validlyexaroisedall relate to
etotutes passed in aid 0r agrloulture.m
w
In ZiohiganSugar Co. v..Auditm i)enural,(Sup.
Ct. Lich. 19ctd)124 iii&, 674, a3 H.Y. 625, the ati?tute
under review provideda bouty to be patd far the iw:iul’octi;re
in ZLchigan, of fiurps fra sugar bacts grown ia thirSate of
Kiahigan,and among other things requiredthciiaatutacturar
to'pay the aellijr 31 tne ba;.tsa ctrrtaiu .~io~;ruo
price in
order~tobe e1iCibl.a for the b>*uetr.T;.at%)uzthel& the
bouaty to be far a gzlvatemu not ~8 public +posa. A
etiilar statutenas b&ora t:l*:A&6sota Lup*dza Court in
6Xnnesotstusar Co.~v. Iv%Pson, (1903) 91 ~io.Il* 30, 97
%.a. 454, and the aotwas held to be mid, the purpose of
the.act being psivate. The court stated itiita opinion:
” . That a rranufacturiogaompanyis not
a pubhi enterprise, rit!d the maiiiog of
any well-asttladrule, and that a gatuity or
;bounty tharato is not a grant of mnney other
than far a private purpose,is univsreallj'
bald in the cousts of the Unit& States. It.
j.supon this .principal that the case 818have
-pitea'fron ous own asporteers btisad;' Ths
raising of sugar baats for manufacture in
tbia statcr ia just es nucb a privah business
enterpriaodo is the nanufaotureof sugar
therefrom,or the carryingon 0r any other
kind of a manufacturingbusfmma. ... .
It is also universallyheld that, to sen&~on
ti:bpublio purpose
a eraat OS public fu;lds,
iuvdytd must be direct."
-...-I
Honorable W. R. Chambers, Page 12
In Deal V. MIssIsslppI county (sup. ct..no. 1891)
a statute "to enc g0 grOVth Or rOD3St tPt#eS,” provided
a per acre bounty Tfo planting and cultivating "forest trees"
on prairie land. The court held the act In violation or a
constitutIonal proVisiOn requiring that taxes be levied and
collected ror public purposes only. The court pointed out
that the land vas ths private property UP the omier and
stated:
"That an enterprise msy IndIrectly In-
ure to the public benefit Is not tbe sole
\ ,crlterIonby vhioh to determine a public
purpose. Rvery Improvement and every
business enterprise benefit.8khe ~publlo
to some extent. . . . The legislature of
Wlssourl had no power to author&e county
courts to raise money by taxation, to be
appropriated to'the plantiag 0r trees upon
private property for private gaIn;no
right to the trees or the use or control
of the trees be- reserved to the public."
The various
jurlsdlctlons are In confl.Ictupon the
qUestion Of using
publIo money to aid farmers by makIng seed
In Stats (IX rel Grirflth v. Osavkee Tvp
@?ig .&m. Rep. 99, it was held that such use &?:o??
public purpose but in State ex rel CoodvIn v. Relson County,
11. D, 88, 45 R. W. 33, such grants vere held to be for a
publlu purpose OB the basis that the recipients were in
Imminent danger of becasing paupers. The real public purpose
vas therelore, care of paupers and Indigents. WlllIam
Diering & Co. v. Peterson, (Sup. Xkm. 1898), 77 H. W. 568,-
held an aot appropriating money for seed loans to rarmers
whose crops were destrpyed by hail or storms, to be for a
private purpose, but -ted that IS the appropristlon bad
been lImItedtothes0 In ImmInentdangerofbeuomIngpaupers
It~might have been upheld.
Acta In the Various states provIdIng for county
agents, research, and the'prcxmotionof the science and art of
agriculture in oooperation with the Federal Government have
generally been upheld, .ThIs Is also true of farm bureau
laws. Cansen v. HF@uaan County (IQ.'1919 215 3. W. 4083
Hendrickson v. Taylor County Farm Bureau tKg. 1922), 244~
s. w. 82; state ex rel Rail County Farm Rureau v. Miller (Reb .
lg2o), 178 3. W. 846; Westlako v. Anderson (R.D.) 156.1~.W.
9258 Roroross v. tale (Nev.) 189 P. 877; Comer v. state,
(Ind.) 110 R. E. 984. These uasqs have gone on the basis
. that the f+undswere devoted to a branch oi the educational
polIoy or the.state affecting Its chief industry, and that
.
"I -
Honorable W. R. Chambers, Page 13
the develoment and promotion of the
Interests of the state are matters o
aff6ct the public generally.
In Vette v. Chllders (1924), 228 P. 145, the
Supreme Court of Qklahm held Ilnconstltutlonalan act
providing fInancIa1 aid ror the establlshPlentor ware-
houses by.~rarmer8s cooperative associstions" and b so
doing stated:
It . Uhen ve consider Seotlons 18 and
' 16,.hri&e 10, together, it ib appare@t thst
taxes can be levied In this state only for
public purposes,and fundsinthe stste
treasury which h4ve been ralsed by tsxes
for public purposes cannot be devoted to
any other purpose. .
"i.' .
'The appropriation provided In Secti&
18 of the act under oonsideratlon Is not for
purposes~.oiregulation and control of the
enterprise, but is to assist In establishing
a system or warehouses to bs owned, operated
and controlled by associations oi individuals.
Whlla the est;ablIsbmentand operation of the
system or warehouses mLght ultimately
result In a benefit to the entIre ramiing
class or the state, and by reason of the
encouragement @en to this Industry might
result In a general benefit to the entlzw
publlo, the direct objeot or this appra-
,prIatIon is for the ass~stanoe Of a group of
IndIvIduala vho shall own, operate, and
controlthevarehouses.
. I. . WhIld the learned trial judp
was oi*& opinion that &he sot was ior the
benefit of the iamser, and thus benefIted the
public, and the approprIatlon qas ior that
reason for a public pur#&e, we are or the
opinion thrt the associations OS Individuals
to whom the fund is to be.~losnedare'the
ones directly benerlted by the act, and
with only a prospectlve~and inawe,+ bene-
rit to the public." # -- -A. -, L
..
&morable ‘8.ii.Chambers, i’aga14
Zo do r.otaohsldarcams SUC!~as do;*gettv. Colcs;l,
(Colii.Sup. 1091; U+ L.&A. 474; KentuckyLive Stock &resd~r:a
Ass!n V. LiSt;t3r I&y. 1;05) 85 ci.ii. 738, Oni]. Otliars
holdi-
that the conduot Of a ‘stat%lair, or plso~g sxhlbltss(lver-
tisiiigthe State gaherallyit axpositionsoutside the stat%,
asO for the basrjfit of the str?te as a :vhole,are sppllcsb1s
to-tileUill here uder cJil8ideratlon.
Th% ‘i’axas
cases upon this aubjaot%re $t n-r-
ous.
;t was held lu ileaverv. i2.curryCounty (T.G.A.1894)
: zj 5.s. 830 thot an act provk!ing ilorthe paymht of a bsuty
for dsstmying wolves sod othcc wi1d anlzsls wss tor 8 @b1lo
PU~POSS,b80d uppn ki8Oti~ 23, kstms 16 0r ths c0n8tituti0n
pravldlugthat ‘Wm legislaturessy pass laws for the
protectionof stock ra!.sars in the stoek rsislngportions
0r ths etate.” This case was olted wit.?approvallo liealv. A
uoog-Loott, (T.C.A. 1923) 247 33. 689,,ho1dingthat the
tlok eradicatim 1an did not violateArticle 8, 33otlOn3.
The court thare held the aot 1vasfor a publio purpose on
the gmunds 04 pub110 i-,c:alth a:?dprotootionor stook
and stooicraisers.
These casas are 0: little bt:!i&fit in deteminlut,
the lssuaa h%rF,,
since thay ar% alealy Juatlfledasd are
based upon tho groundsxeiltioned above.
Uavis v. Cite-of &ylor, (Sup. Ct. 19341, 67
.J.n
Ail. (Zdl lo33$ en ordinance,lqrlng a tex ‘for‘the
,establistient and maintanancoof a ‘Boardof City Develop-
msst, Chanbtir of Comsrce, or other alAlar organization
under whatsoeverna;lle, devotedto tha growth, advertlseosnt,
developsenti *+zovmsent, az& imrcaso OP the taxable values
Of the city of ‘i’sylor,was ujheld agalsst tha attack thst it
was not for a publid;~urgoss. The aourt alted an& discussed
the cases in other jurisl;iot.iona holdiilgthat apgroprlatioUa
for exhlbltl.hgthe resourcssor a looslltyat stste or natioool
exhibitionsor fairs, ware for,,8public purpose,and drsw .
the r0n0dn8 conaluslon:
,I ii0 can ‘se8no fasterlal ai’frorenca
in tha*uit$ate purposeof an exhibit ol th%
waouroe3 or a partlouiarlooalltyat an
oxpositionand tiiemom no&em method JE
presenting,the advanta&ssand ogportuoltler,
or,8 oity, oaaty, oh stste, through nsws-
pspsrs or zmgazinus edwertiaiq, and silnllQr
ohanoels.
‘T’
“‘:
.r.
.‘..”
‘*-__ .
1-* -
. . .
ilonorableii.B. Chaabers, Pafit15
” . The caztral asd laadiilxpurpo30,
and th; &.‘tsollLng ona, is -tVhethsr
or not
-a nuuioipality siayuse city funds to advurtlm
th3 city’s advantages.W
It nust be noted thot this cssa is busod- upon
ac?Vdrttd.Lig the 8dVtiiitf3Eu3Qr?d 0p;ortuaitiaa of t3e u
ard ita rc430urc~s. In our opinioc there is a narkad dls-
tlnnatlonbetmen nuoh advertising a:.dthijsituat.Lonwhiah
-m&I have buen before tilct court had t::ecity atternptsdto
levy a .tax to advertlair tim products of soizotidustry
i0eatcra within its ld.izlta, a3 for exaopltt, tile nattress
industry. Advertising withis ilxalf is but the ma33 end
not the end.
The Thirty-third Legislature edacted what was known
as the X’kcaidactialPrimry Act and, amng other things,
it W8S prOVid3d tiLtIttk3 eXi&LlSeOf pSLZiCi~yeltictior?sSOr
whose cacdidate ftirGovareor at t~~a’ltist
.partl.ee preceding
gensral eleotioa received as may ha 50,000 votes should be
paid out of the county treasury 3f each aouhty. The ;uprem .
Court or Taxas, speaking throu.& &is?. Zu;lticeYikiUipS,
held suoh expmditiira not to be far a ;;uXio purpose in
kaplea v. 4;arra.%t,(lQ6), lC$ 2.5. X0. Zn the opinion,
the.court ai92t2ssf3dthe ;ncar:inr;
of “pubflc :~iir~ose*‘,
as
usaa in our conatl.tutLon,quitt.Zully azd YiCGiersfore
quote at aocxelen@h the exprcs3ions of tt;ccourt:
Vaxes are burdens inp0sQa for the
support of the govermant. They are faia as
a Deans of providing publio revemas for
publio purposes. The s3vsreign power of the
.Ytate nay bs exercisea in tL;Pir. levy a2.d c31-
/ leotion on17 upon toe cxdition that. they
. shall be aev.Otrtd to auoh purposes; ahd no
lawful ter can be laid for a differ%& pur-
pose. Gheuever they are iragosedfor pri--
vate purposea, us~waa said in i%roa~eeav.
‘Zi1xauk.e,19 ?/ls..670,2iiAn.,Uac. 711, It
ceases to ba ta,xstion, al;il becomes plzi&er.
“It is not easy to atqte in uxect tame
what Is ‘8 public purpose*‘I.3the sense,%
whioh that terzuis eaglogad as a Li3itatlon
upon the titsta’sparer ok ‘*amtim. 36
frmara of the Constitution were aoubtleaa
sensible of this dirfloulty, tar they did sot
attempt to adine it. ~~:hany...,ObJQCtS
my be
.: -
_. . ”
. ‘.
I I
Honorable W. R. Chambera, Page 17
all of them, and not as a paternal In&,Itu-
tion, may justly coneem itself, and to which,
for that rmson, tho publla r4v4nues may be
rightfully devoted.
"As to what Is a public purpoie withIn
the meaning or Section 3, Artiole 8 OS the
Constitutian, no bettor teat can be prerented
thantho InquIryr Is thethfagtohe
edbytheappropriatlon OS the public revenue
~scmothlq which It la the duty oS the State,
ab a govement, to provide?* Loan AaaoaIa-
tion v. Topoks, 20 Wall. 655, 22'L. Ed.
People v. Tom of Selea, 20 HIah. 452, 4
Am. Rep. 400. Those thlags vhioh It is
the duty of tha State to provide for the
people, It Is equally the right of the stat&
by man8 OS the public revonuo, to maintain,
Within this category .&ill the gelieral Instru-
mentalities or the government, the public
t3ch0018,and other institutions 0r 1Ike nature.
Buttho stats iswhollpwIthoutanypow4r *
to levy and appropriate taxes for the aup-
port of~those things which, either by aommon
usage orbecauaethey~bF0 Innoproper s4me
the lnatrnment$ OS goverment, lt ie~the duty
of the people tb provId4 for tbemselvea. ft.
is not all thInga which answer a public
need or SIl1.a publla want that It Is wtth-
In the authority or the Stata to PurnIsh
for the p4opl4*a use or support at the public
expewse . Mnufacturlng Induetriaa, raS&
roadn, public entorprlaer OS manyWnd6,
private sohoolr and private charitable lmtl-
tutlonm all aria-d a servlae to the publlc, but
~~lm3tati la vIthout any pwer to maintan
BelIgIon la generallg~esteemed a help-
ful hfglen~ r0r pub110 morality. Rut Mm
.’ Conztltutlon expressly docrlaroe that no publla
money ahutll be granted in aid or any msl+ ~.
glow orgsnlwttlon~" L".
Referring hrcfr to the p&vIaLok~oS,tha Bill In
question, it must be.recognIsed thatgerely because the tax
Is laid on t+o rI4e lnduatry and then expended for ita @eueSIt
I4 not eI&nIsicant. If the purpore Is public In charareter,
the approprlstlon alght,be ~snadofrom ths,,.ge~nalrevenue fund
0r the State, or th4 taxla¶d upon-o~bnr,occupatlona such as
Honorable W. R. Chambers, Page 18
the milling OS Slour, production of oil, etc., and ths
revenuea dedicated to advertising rice and rice products.
Or, on the other hand the tax levied in this Bill on rice
millers, might be used to advertise corn and vhsat and
their products, if that purpose be public.
It Is quite ~clear that:;theTexas courts have never
gone so far a8 to hold a purpose oS t&Is nature to be publI,c;
The language in yaplea v. Marrast has never,been expr4ssly
disproved by our Supreme Court and Its construotion of
our.constltutIonal provi~lons would bs a 8tiricibnt basis
far holdin& the Bill under consideration unoonstitutl~nal.
:
Ho t&Ink that under the better reasoneda&horItIea
and the saunder~$rIxicIplesupon vhiah the above quoted eonstl-
tutIonaL llmitatlons are baaed, Advertising aud conducting
a a&es arw$publicity campaign for rice and rice products,
"to promote the prosperity and vslfare 0% rim growers~and
producers ln ne State of'Texas,” as stated ia the Act, Is
not a public purpose for which times may be levIed.and
publLcmoneys appropriat4d. The Act therefore In our opin-
Ion violates Article VIII, Sections 3 and 6 OS the Texas
Constitution. -There are two reoont cases, however, to
which we wish to direct attsntlon.
In Floyd Fruit Co. v. Florida Citrus Commission,
(1937); 175 So. 248, 112 A.L.R. 562, ths Florida Supreme
Court upheld an act very similar to Houae Bill IUo. 136.
The statute levied an excise tax on ths basis oi 14 per
box on oranges, 31 per box on grapetilt, and~5# per bar
on tangerlues to be placed In a Special fknd Sor.the pur-'
pose. of advertIsing~'thesewkrIousproducts. In th4 k3ourae
or the opIn%on the crourt~held.thatadvertising the citrus
industry of Florida was for a public purpose for which
.a- taxes might be levied. The court apparently takea the
position that the citrus Industry Is one,oS the state88
greatest Industries and arrecta so great f+ portion. 0r th* '
population OS the state as to be a matter OS public; con-
cern;.and thmrefcireZts advertising Is a mbllo purpose.
At another point In ths. opinion:tbb court states:
"It Is not exaluslvely for their (those
engaged In turnips citrus Sruit into the
chsnnels OS comsmrcs) benerlt because any
.aotIvIts vhlah redounds to the benefit
OS thO80 engaged ti marketing citrus jtults
Iu Florida redqmds IudIrectls.*tv aome ex-
benerit the publlo.generally."
ours.)
Honorable W. R. Chsmbers, Page 19
Thi8 Cue WAS rO~OWd by the 8UpMID4 cOWt Or Idaho
In stats ox relikmhsm v. BpLIng (1938), 82Pac. (kd) 64g,
by a divided court, three to two. The statute MB a&o8t
Identical vith the PlorIda Act except that It applied to
'fAlit8 and vegstables md by-pmduats.” and deiiecrdfPdt8
and V4mtsbl48 W &&es, PI’UMB, pOt8tO48 @Id OliiOZlB. The
court QuotedatlengthS'rmthePloPIda 0a~eand~tatedthat
"the prokatlon and promotlon ot the apple, prune, potato,
and onion industry ia a8 much a matter 0r uoncexa to Idah
as the cttrua fruit Industxy iB.to Fl~rlda,~ and concluded
that th4w0r0 the tax " SW a publie PltEpOBO..
~Jt~kybe8ZgWd&tgXWtlfm&haB tOVhethePtb88e
CAB@B IBAJ be dIstSaguIshed from the .!dtuatlon nw before us,
and whether tholr doctrines and holdings vmld be acaeptttd
andapplIedby ths co&t8 of tuB 3tak BhouldthequeBtioP
bs prosentad to thoa. As heretofore pointed out, time and
usago Is anelementtobe aonsideredIndeWque8-
tiats of this tiature, and udder t&a present 8tatus of the
,."Te%aB decisions, thI8 Is a matter vhlchmnnmtneoeBsarlly
be p~~4Y.y spocul8tiVe and upon vhioh ve are nOt~~olPpek~t
to adrise.
lie next rerer to‘that portion of the 8111 which levies
-Uutar~d2reatsthrtalrt~~oCb~ tbelvfrasBhi3nbe
used by the CCW~~BBIO~~ to OfiOOtU@ the pU~0848 therein
o-ted. . .
~Artlale VII& Seotlon 1 ai the TOXAB Constltutiom
Pl’OVidOB iXtportt
"Taxation sball be equal and unifo%m. 'All
pr?pertyinthis State, whether owned b natwal~
peawms o~oorparatIon~, otherthsnmun i cipal,
Bhll. be tBX4d iItprOpOrtiO?Dt0 it8 WLlu4, Which
_, . ,. : 'shll~~wrtaItt~~maybo providedby law. Tha
tb&BlditW fJBpOBtD 8 pOu
Btft;l~ tBX, It My 8bO
Impose oocugatlon taxesiboth upon natural per-
SW8 and upon aorportttlwa,other thaa luunia~~2,
.' doingUaybus$aesB tithis~3tste. IttDayalBO'
tax In~ow8 ofboth~turalperscaas and corpora-.
tians other than atunlaipsl,exoept that par- .-
sons engqed'iqme~b&nUalandagrloultu+l
PUPSUitS SW it0Vbr~$0 WUiPOd to PAY BP
oocaqntlon.tax. .. .," ,' .'
Artk%1q VIfI,'3eotIcm a of the Tara ConBtlti+ion
COtttrittB th. fO~@V~ PWiBiOtt:
...‘_,,;
-t-
.- c:. -
‘.
. ..+ -
. .’
., .. . .
Honorable W. R. Chambers, Page 20
"All ooaupatlon taxes shall be equal and
uniform Upon the same COBB OS BUbj4CtB vlthti
the l$mlts OS the authority levying the tax;
. . .
Article VII, Saction 3 &' tha:Consti.tutIonreads
in part As fOliOW8:
"One-fourth OS the rsvenus derived from
the State occupation taxes and poll tax OS
one dollar on every inhabitant of the State,
. Shall b4 Bet &part annUally SOP the
. GeieSIt of the pub110 Sree sChoola."
Certain language in %‘UBB Bill HO. 136 iB such tbst
it may be ausceptlble to the construction that a property
tax la Intended to bs Imposed, however, upon closer exam&
nation Lt becomes apparent that this la not a propsr chw-
acterIeatlon of the tax. I
TAxeB~fall Into three general classes, namely, capl-
tation or poll taxes, taxes on property, and excises. Tax48
on property aFo sometimes described as thdse which ar4 @met-
ly upon‘the property Itself. The term excise has come to
have A broad meaning and includes every form of taxation
which is not A burden laid directly upon p4r~on~ or property3
in Other VOrdB, 4XCiW Imludes 4Very fOIttt
Of ChetYgO Imposed
by public authority Sor the pwpose of ralsIng revenues upon
thp perSomanee of an aat, the enjoyment OS a prlvilega,
or the engaging In axe occupation. ,The obligation tow&y an
excise IS baaed upon the voluntsry a&ton 0r the parson t54d
In perfomlng the act, enjoying thi'privilege, Or..engagirrg
In the occupation vhioh 1s~ tee subject of the eXCl84 and the
element OS abaolUt4 And unavoldable'detnand iB lack%ng. 26
R.C.L. p. 34 B 18. Exc1ae* Isay fall ult3mately upon prop4rty
I ' indirectly and be paid out Or it @ut if the tax iB really iJ+
posed upon the periormsnce of an act, the enjoyment of a privl-.
lege, or the sngaglng in aa occUpatIon,'It ~131 be~consldered
an sxalae. . I.
'.
To con~truo the tax impdBed by HcnxseB& Ho. 136
as a property tsx would render It in violation of Article
VIII, Seotion 1, for It would not;be on all property alIk4,
and not ia proportion to its value; even as to milled rioe.
It might also be noted her4 that Artlale VIII, Section 9,
lImIta the State Ad valorem tax rate to 354 per $100.00
valuation on property. These factors beJ.ng,true It will
not be COttBtrWd a8.a property,tax ,y, t*re;Is a reaaonabl4
bti818 ror apotheb C&SBBiriCt3tiOtt~~~~
The fact that some OS the language in the aotmight
sigg4at a purpose to lay the tax iapon the rice is not con-
trolling, ror an expr4as claaalSIcatIon of a tax in the
tftXittg Bti&~t4 is not CCWhBiVS OT Or BI?4at BigZdfiCanCSi
Honorable W. R. Ch8mberu, Page 21
City OS Abilene ?. Fryar !C;C.A$g')O) 143 S. W. (26) 654;
State v. City of Bl Paso t 1940) 14 3. W. (26) 3661
State ve Bogg (Coo. App. 193&-
), 7;'s. W. (26f 293.
Floyd Fruit Co. v. Florida Citrus C0imnl88lon, 175
So. 248, 112 A.L.R. 562, recognized a sinllar tax aa ~11
eXC18e tar in the fOlloWin&$lan@aa&8:
"So it 18 that under the provisions of the
act, it 18 defined as an excise tax. It 1s levied
On the basis of 1 cent per box on oranges, 3 cents
per box on grapefruit, aad 5 cent8 per box on
,tangerlnes per~standfed packed box. The tax la
payable when the irhlt 1s first delivered into
: the prlm8ry channel of trade. It 1s to be paid
by the handler of such fruit 8t that time and
not before; The prjaary channel of trade may be
by sale, delivery for ehlpment, or delivery for
cam&g or for processtng into by-products. It
18 8 tax UpOn the priVil9fJe Of hatldling &it
for shipping, or delivering fruit for canning *
Or'processing into by-products. The tax 18 not
'levied upon the right of own8rship or of
production, or of porreelrllon."
Some oourts have used the terms %xcl8e' and "occupy+
tlon tax" aa practically intarchangaable term8 -but our aourt8 .
have clearly recogaized the distinction. It 18 very force-
ably pointed out'in City of Rl Paso v. State, (T.C.A. 1940)
135,s. W. (26) 763, and State v. City of Bl Paso (Sup. Ct.
1940) 143 S. W. (26) 366, reversing the former c&e, that
an occupetton tax is a subclars1f1cat1m of the broader
tern "excise tax' and that the ton8titutlonal pEOV181OII
axemptilpg.uitiea from ocoupatlon tares does not extend to
other typea,of exalseb. The Suprem& Court held in that
case tbat the gasollrm tax was an 8Ualae based upon the
"use" and could not be olae8Lfied as 'an occupation tax and
wiHi3k the corutltutlotal exemption,.
.$n this case it do&8 not appear that--themiller
is made in fact a mere collecting agenoy for the State.
The rice miller 1s required to make monthly reports shov-
ing the amount of rlOe milled by him durw the preceding
month and 1s required to pay the tax on all rice milled
during the,month wlthln the first ten days of the suc-
ceeding calendar month, and upon his failure 80 to do,: .
i:onorable:i'.
H. Chazbere, Page 22
penalties and .intoreetaccru8. Iho tax dooa hot a0crue unlasa
and until the rice is nillud and it attechaa at that t,i.ze
without reference to aalaa, uaa or the happYcirigof aubaqumit
svezts. The tax is basad ug0n a per unit of buainass or
CiiLin; dsE9, (2, pal'100 pOUds of rice milled) which is
azlaoceibtablameasure for the 3tato to uw in levying 83
occuvatim tax. Grayburg Oil Oo. v. Stata, (Corn&p. 1928),
3 5.i. (2dj 427. It 18 not a license fee or tax for it
15 clearly tu raise revewe and -not for tha gurpoae of reg-
ulntion. iiurtV. Cooper, 1lO S.%. (2dJ 896.
It is our opinion that th6 tax iz~poeedby Bouae
Bill X0, 136 ia an oaoupetion tax and ArtJ.aleVU;, Motion
3 of th:6Texas Constitutionthdrd0re' rsquiree thnt one-
fsurth of the revenue derived therefrom shall be sat apart
for tho bmsiit of the publio rrm achoola.
.Articlo iT.II, Section 6 or the Texas Cotstftuticm
reada in part 83 rOliOW8:, .
"No non~y eiiellbe drawn rroa th3.Traaaury
but ir pursuaoce of speoifi;:appropriatiotmmde .
by law; n0r shall a3y ap>ro;rietion of nozag be
node for a larg.arterm than two yeers, . . .*
kW.clu III, &&ion lJ+of the Conatitutlon c0n-
talns the following pr0Viaion:
T%J Lugislatura ohall provido by law for '
tba co~~en86tionof all atticera, servants,
agents and publio ountractore,notiprovided tar
in this c0nstitution, . * r"
Seotion 5 of the Aat provides that the tax ahell
be remitted directly to the ili.06
Developamnt Coarnfsai.on,
_ . oreated by the Aot, end ho proviaLon ie made for the
deposit 0r such p~Mi0 ix0nuywith the State lhim+mr.
WZJthis& it ia propar to point out that this doe3 not
plaoe such funds beyond the provision of Article vIIII,
r;eation-6. 1fcc0fibba
0. hui5 county, (T,C.~~iy40) 136
s.?l,(2dj 975; orfimed'~allaa County v. ZcCoroba,[dup. Ot.
1940), &O AH. (26) J.lO9.
Otbar oonatltutionalpro&eioha may affeot the ia-
position 0r oollectioh of the tax when attenptad to be applied
Zonorable :I. 2. Chambers, Pe,;c23
to various individuals but iyedo not asnsidor it necessary
to disouas euch ~rw~laions hare.
A3 haretofore stated it is our opinion tt& Lou33
3111 No. 136 contravenesAi-ticluVZiT, bcotlon 3 rmd ;.rtLcle
E.u'x
, Aaction ijof the ‘i~?xas
Constitution in that t&i.tax aad
evponditures tbotroiopz%vided are not for a “public purgme.”
iicsr~dfw%iiar of the o@~ion that tnlrtax pro;
vided in tha 3111 ia an ooc$petion tax sad therefora oka-
fourth of the r~vcliutt3
derrrvdd Lkarefrm &lustbe set apart
annually ror th benefit of the >ubiic frsa sabools n3 re-
cpirud by Artlola XI, ;~ytion 3, of t:& %xas Constitution.
Y3tti'B
ve1'srxuly
.' .
By X&bed: C0cll C. Casxcaak
Cecil C. Cammok
Wziaik3tant
.
. .
,’