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.
Wehave exa@ned the traneaript of legal proceedings enWitt+ in oonneotion with the propoeed iaauanoe of $10,000 in bondapursuant to an election held on the 2let day of August, 1943. Weregret that we cannot approve t&bo~W~, but it le our opinion that the attempt to e&e.bllsh th?, dietriot 80ti 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 29220Vernon’e Ann. Civ. Statutee was ineffeot;ual. In oonsequenoe it Is our opinion that the district attempted to be formedwithout auohoomplian08ie not a legal4 oonetituted **iSSuing agency.** 

In oonnectlon with our consideration of the problem, wehave 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 waeaffeotive to oure the wantof 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, (yrdall 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, andheretofore laid o&t andestablished or attempted to be established by the proper offioere of any county or by the Legislature of the State of Texas, andheretofore recognized by either state or oounty .authorlt.iea (LB

eohooldistricta, are hereby validated in all respecte as thoughthey 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 hadpaeaed the quotad validating aat%a after ItBoard 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 dnnnediateeffeot, an&&herefore its effective date wae deferred under the Constitution until 90days after the adjoummant of the Legislature onMay11, 1943. It waeduring the ninety days interim following uponadjourment that the BanderaDistrlo t wasattempted to be formed in disregard of the mandatoryprovisions of Artiole 29220, supra

. The legal queeticm is whether Chapter 327, eupra, is operative to validate andmakeeffeotlve the aotiona taken subbsequentto its passage in the attempted formation of thu,BanderaDl6trlot; If it is not, then the dietriot ie without legal exletanoe in lte present form.

Mr. Gibson’s .brie? snoointly states the argumentto 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, andthe queetlon is onwhatdata the word heretofore is ueed. In tie oaae of G.H. &I S.A. Railway Co. va. State, 178. W. 67, the S~preae Court, speaking throughJudge Gaines, said:

“We apprehendthat no universal rule of oonstruotion can be adoptedwhena statute, whiohmakesa distinction between the future andpast traneaotiona, is paaeeduponone day to take effect on another; but wethink the general rule la that a statute speaks from the time it becomesa law, andwhathaa 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 109Tex. 173, 202S. W. 727; Fisher va. Simon95Tex. 240, 66S. 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&SARy. Co. ve. State, 81Tex. 598, 179. W. 67; soales va. Marehall 96 Tax. 140, 70S. U. 944.

Tnerule that statutes generally speak ae of their effeotive date is but a rule of oonetruction, however, which the courts have employedin ascertaining the Intention of the Legislature In the enaotPlentofstatutes; It ie not a rule whloh applies to all statutes under all oircumatanoee. The true rule for deteminlng the meaningof language mployed in anAct of the Legislature la to give the statute the meaningwhich 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 whichwe 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 whiohwouldhave been valid if the mtatutahadno 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 ,uponpaat aotlono and ordlnarl4 will be oonetied M having no prospeotlve operatIona whatever. HuntC& w. Ftt Coun@ (Tar. Oiv. App.) 7 8. W. (26) 648 (Op’

j?;;ibnof Majority approved on annwerto oertifled queetiona, ~6 Tax. 277, 288 6. Ii. 805); 5%&.. ,J. p. 1179See. 7l3.
In People ex rel Maokayw. OB. b QRColpany, 305 Ill. 567, l37 X. E. 392, the Supreme Oourt of Illinoie hadbefore it for review the valldlty of a tax levy niadeAugust 10, 1921; the appellantd oontended that a validating Aot paeaedby the Legislature on May10, madethe levy effective. This contention waeoverruled by the court, and it waeeald,

“Curative Aote donot apply to defects arising after palrrrage

of the Aot. Theobjedt of a curative aot is not to ohange the lawgoverning future action, bat to waive come requhent of the lawaffeoting past action.”
Togive the validating aot hem under oonslderatlon the oonetruotlon that it was effective to cum anydefeat arising prior to the date it beoameeffective ae a law, wouldbe 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 90daye after this adjournment of the Legirlatum which paeeed it. In effeot, the aot wouldbe
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 lawwaspasned. Validating acte in their nature are written broadly, .sethie one lej if it is given prospective operation between the date it waspassed hp the Legislature and its effective date, all ofthe eafeg#crla whioh the Legislatizm has painstakingly preeorlbed in relation to the establlahnent of sohool districts wouldbe waived andsuspended. Wecannot foretell just what oouaequenoes would flow framsuoh aBoard of Tnmtees, Bandera, Page 4 (O-5903)

construction of the Act: the action preeently reviewed is but one of the possible resulte whichwould 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 attamptedto be formedbefore the enaotmnt of the tiaaure. In oonaequence, It la further our opinion that the act ia not operative to oure the wantof compliance with Article 2g22c In the attempted fomatlon of the BanderaRural El@ School Dietriot subeequent to the passage of the sot.

Another reason for our opinion that the ouratlw aot irrnot effective to validate the attempted fomatlon of the BanderaDistrict ia that the etatute by itr terms is limited to those eohooldletricta established or attempted to be eetabllahed "by the proper officers of anyCounty. e ." In view of the fact that Article 29220requires 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 CountyBoard of Truetees should not be regmded am"the proper officers" to establish the dletriotwithin the meanlugof the curative act.

For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the proposed bond6maynot be lee14 Issued, and the sameare therefore disapproved.
APPROVED

APR.7, 1944 Very truly yours /a/ Geo. P. Blaokbum AlTORNEYGEt@R&LOFTEXAS
ACTItJGA'IWRREYGBNRRALOF TFXAS By /s/ GaynorKendall GaynorKendall Assistant

GK:ncd-da OK/s/ F.D. ZBISOPIIiIOll CWSlDERm Am APPROVED

IIILTMITED CONFERENCE