E, mrowivEar GENERAL 

OF XAS 

Boar&of Truetees, Bandera $& 

RuralHI@ Sehool~Dietriot 

Bsndera, Texas 

oeutlemen .: opinlon~,RcL O-5903 

B&f SHS@&y of proposed Bandera 

REBD bonde; whether validating 

act app1iee tQ actions takep 

aubeequent to enaatnant, but 

prior to its effective date. 

We have exa@ned the traneaript of legal proceedings enWitt+ 

in oonneotion with the propoeed iaauanoe of $10,000 in bonda pursuant to 

an election held on the 2let day of August, 1943. We regret that we cannot 

approve t&bo~W~, but it le our opinion that the attempt to e&e.bllsh th?, 

dietriot 80 ti to invlude within its boundaries more t?mn 100 equa2-e miles 

without holding an eleotion relative to such oreation ae required bj~AFti0l.e 

29220 Vernon’e Ann. Civ. Statutee was ineffeot;ual. In oonsequenoe it Is 

our opinion that the district attempted to be formed without auoh oomplian08 ie not a legal4 oonetituted iSSuing agency. 

In oonnectlon with our consideration of the problem, we have 

been furnished with a brief prepared on behalf of the dietrlot by Mr. 

J. P. Gibsw, ab4 urging that the validating act enacted by the 48th 

Leglsletare wae affeotive to oure the want of ocmplianoe with the mandate 

of Article 29220; the validating act (Chap. 327, Aote 48th Legislature) 

provide;a in pWt: 

“All sohool districts, inoludw * * * ~ruralhigh aohool 

districte, (yrd all other schooldist+.te, groups or annexationa 

,bf whole dietrlcte or parts of dlst~iots by vote of people residing 

in suoh d@tricte or by aotion of oounty eohoolboards, whether 

created by general or epecial law in this state, and heretofore 

laid o&t and established or attempted to be established by the 

proper offioere of any county or by the Legislature of the State 

of Texas, and heretofore recognized by either state or oounty 

.authorlt.iea (LB eohooldistricta, are hereby validated in all 

respecte as though they had been dn4 and legal4 eatabllehed 

Ill the firat! instance." 

All aotione relating to the attempted oreation of the Bandera 

Dlstriot., as it affects the present issue of bonde, were en after the 

time the Legislature had paeaed the quotad validating aat %a after It 
Board of Tnmteea, Bandera Page ? (o-5903) 

had been approved~ by the Governor. While the bill carried an emergency 

ohuse, It did not receive the raoord vote in both houses requieite t,o 

put it into dnnnediate effeot, an&&herefore its effective date wae 

deferred under the Constitution until 90 days after the adjoummant of 

the Legislature on May 11, 1943. It wae during the ninety days interim 

following upon adjourment that the Bandera Distrlo t was attempted to 

be formed in disregard of the mandatory provisions of Artiole 29220, 

supra . 

The legal queeticm is whether Chapter 327, eupra, is operative 

to validate and make effeotlve the aotiona taken subbsequent to its passage 

in the attempted formation of thu,Bandera Dl6trlot; If it is not, then the 

dietriot ie without legal exletanoe in lte present form. 

Mr. Gibson’s .brie? snoointly states the argument to aupport 

the valldlw of the eatabliehment of the district aa followa: 

“It will be observed that this valldatlng aot appllee 

to all district-a heretofore established, and the queetlon 

is on what data the word heretofore is ueed. In tie oaae of 

G.H. &I S.A. Railway Co. va. State, 17 8. W. 67, the S~preae 

Court, speaking through Judge Gaines, said: 

“We apprehend that no universal rule of oonstruotion 

can be adopted when a statute, whioh makes a distinction between 

the future and past traneaotiona, is paaeed upon one day to 

take effect on another; but we think the general rule la that 

a statute speaks from the time it becomes a law, and what haa 

oamrred between the date of its passage and the time it took 

effect is deemed, with respeot to the statute, a,past tranaaotlon.~" 

It Is well settled by our casee that, a8 a general rule etatutes 

having prospeotive operation speak aa of their effective date. Moonnan 

va. Terre11 109 Tex. 173, 202 S. W. 727; Fisher va. Simon 95 Tex. 240, 

66 S. V. 477. Hence it is further established that exoeptlone oarved out ,.. 

of statute8 having proepeotlve operation general4 relate to the effecti+ '., 

date of the statute. GE & SA Ry. Co. ve. State, 81 Tex. 598, 17 9. W. 67; 

soales va. Marehall 96 Tax. 140, 70 S. U. 944. 

Tne rule that statutes generally speak ae of their effeotive date 

is but a rule of oonetruction, however, which the courts have employed in 

ascertaining the Intention of the Legislature In the enaotPlent of statutes; 

It ie not a rule whloh applies to all statutes under all oircumatanoee. 

The true rule for deteminlng the meaning of language mployed in an Act 

of the Legislature la to give the statute the meaning which is expreaelve 

of the Legielatiw intention. Soalee vs. Marehall, aupra. 

Sutherlad, Statutory Comtruotion (~3rd Ed. HorFk) Vol. 2 , 

p. ~6 Sec. 221.3, defines the charaoter of euaotmehtwith which we 

presently are comerned as follows: 
Board of Truetees, Bandera,Page 3 :(O-5903) 

"A ourative sot is a statute pasaed to cum defeota in 

prior law, erto validate proceed-, lnet~enta, or aote of 

pnblia or private admlnletrative authorltlee whloh in the 

abaenoe of moh an aot would be void for want of oopfonnity 

with existing lee1 requirsmentr, but whioh would have been 

valid if the mtatuta had no provided at the tire of enaoting.” 

Clmtlre 8tatuter are rare4, ii ever, intended to hare 

any prorpeotlve operationt they eze in their very nature 

rf+mpeotire, am intended to operata ,upon paat aotlono and 

ordlnarl4 will be oonetied M having no prospeotlve operatIona 

whatever. Hunt C& w. Ftt Coun@ (Tar. Oiv. App.) 7 8. W. 

(26) 648 (Op’j?;;ibn of Majority approved on annwer to oertifled queetiona, ~6 Tax. 277, 288 6. Ii. 805); 5%&.. ,J. p. 1179 See. 7l3. 

In People ex rel Maokay w. OB. b QR Colpany, 305 Ill. 567, 

l37 X. E. 392, the Supreme Oourt of Illinoie had before it for 

review the valldlty of a tax levy niade August 10, 1921; the 

appellantd oontended that a validating Aot paeaed by the 

Legislature on May 10, made the levy effective. This contention 

wae overruled by the court, and it wae eald, 

“Curative Aote do not apply to defects arising after 

palrrrage of the Aot. The objedt of a curative aot is not to 

ohange the law governing future action, bat to waive come 

requhent of the law affeoting past action.” 

To give the validating aot hem under oonslderatlon the 

oonetruotlon that it was effective to cum any defeat arising 

prior to the date it beoame effective ae a law, would be to 

oonetme the act an euependlng all the mquirsmsnta relating to 

the eetabllshaent of nohool distriote for the period beginning x~” 

with the paemaSe of the act and ending 90 daye after this adjournment 

of the Legirlatum which paeeed it. In effeot, the aot would be 

a delegation to the looalauthorltiea of the legielatlve power 

to prescribe the method to be obeerved in the ertablinhment of 

sohool distriote during the period between parrage of the aot 

and lte effeotiw date. 

It ir obvloua, we thin$ that a auratire sat-one an6wming to 

waive frilare to bbaerve a pmeor%@d prooew-ra6t neoeerarlly 

be oonstied ae rei&ting.to acti- 92 which the Legielatum oould 

haw been aw- at the t&e the law was pasned. Validating acte 

in their nature are written broadly, .se thie one lej if it is 

given prospective operation between the date it was passed hp the 

Legislature and its effective date, all of the eafeg#crla whioh 

the Legislatizm has painstakingly preeorlbed in relation to the 

establlahnent of sohool districts would be waived and suspended. 

We cannot foretell just what oouaequenoes would flow fram suoh a 
Board of Tnmtees, Bandera, Page 4 (O-5903) 

construction of the Act: the action preeently reviewed is but one of 

the possible resulte which would aoorue frm suoh a oomtmotioa. We 

therefore are of the opinion that the validating act above quoted does 

not apply to a&ions taken In the formation of eohool dletricta subeequent to Its paesage through the kzaislature, but la limited to dlstriote ~ 

formed or attampted to be formed before the enaotmnt of the tiaaure. 

In oonaequence, It la further our opinion that the act ia not operative 

to oure the want of compliance with Article 2g22c In the attempted fomatlon of the Bandera Rural El@ School Dietriot subeequent to the passage 

of the sot. 

Another reason for our opinion that the ouratlw aot irr not 

effective to validate the attempted fomatlon of the Bandera District ia 

that the etatute by itr terms is limited to those eohooldletricta established 

or attempted to be eetabllahed "by the proper officers of any County. e ." 

In view of the fact that Article 29220 requires a vote of the qualified. 

electors ae a condition preoedent to the establiebmnt of a proposed rural 

high school dietriot oontaining within its boundaries more than one hundred 

aqume oflea, it is probable that the County Board of Truetees should not 

be regmded am "the proper officers" to establish the dletriotwithin 

the meanlug of the curative act. 

For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the proposed 

bond6 may not be lee14 Issued, and the same are therefore disapproved. 

APPROVED APR. 7, 1944 Very truly yours 

/a/ Geo. P. Blaokbum AlTORNEYGEt@R&LOFTEXAS 

ACTItJGA'IWRREYGBNRRALOF TFXAS 

By /s/ Gaynor Kendall 

Gaynor Kendall 

Assistant 

GK:ncd-da 

OK /s/ F.D. 

ZBIS OPIIiIOll CWSlDERm 

Am APPROVED III LTMITED 

CONFERENCE