cpinion construing section 7 or HLB. NO. 133, and holding:

It is our opinion that Section 7 of H.B. NO. 133 authorizes the State Superintendent to t6ke into consideration the presence ofUniversity lands and National forests within (1School District a.8OILCof the factors in determining the need of that district,but that such districtmust;!beet

all the requirements set cut in other sections of the Act bn order to quqlify for state aid.

(EFICE OFTHE ATl'(RNE.YCENERAl

Honorable H. A. Formen Camty Attorney,Upton Rankin, Texas narch 3, 1939

calkty

Honorable Fouler Roberts CountyAttorney. Reagan County Big Lake,Texas Gentlemen: OpinionNo. O-334

Re: Ruling on the interpretation Or Hause Bill NO. 133, Chapter 60, Act8 1937, Forty-rirth Legislature, Second Called Session

we have received from each 

### or you a request for a ruling on the interpretation of House Bill No. 133, Chapter 60, Acts, 1937 Fort&-fifthLegislature, Second Called Session, andparticularly Section 7, thereof, as it affects the right or a schooldistrict containingUnirerstty lands to receive State aid under saidAct, regardless or need. Inasmuch as both requests involve the same question,we shall answer them in one opinion.

We wish to express cur appreciation for the help given us by the briefs on this question submittedby Mr. Fouler Roberts and Mr. Roy R. Priest.

House Bill No. 133, above referred to, Is entitled "Amending Rural Aid and Equalization Fund Law*, and wespassed by the Second CalledSession of the Forty-fifth Legislature ln October, 1937. It constitutesa re-enactment,with 801118 changes and sdditions, ot all except the appropriation section or the Act passed rivemonths earlierby the same Legislature at its regular session. The earlier Act is Senate Bill No. 183 Chapter 474, Acts Forty-fifth Legislature,Regular Session, entitled *RuralAid andEqualization Fund Appropriation.wsection 7 or Hcuse.Bill NO. 133 reeds 88 r0mm3: -Provided the State Superintendent shell take into consideration,in fixing allowances to school districts, eny loss sustainedby saiddistrict **by** 

### reason of the Federel Government buying land icr ~e6ionel forests, end by reeson of the locstion in raiddistricts ofUniversity lends, end the State Superintendent shellbe authorized tomake allocations to raid distrfcts by rlttue of losses suetainedby said districtby reeson of Federel purchase or lends, the amants to be fixed by the Stste Superintendentbased upon exfsting facts end circumstancesapplicable to all other schooldlstrlcts, end In ell exceptions provided herein the consent or the State Board orXducetion shellbe first hsd snd bbts1ned.e This lection 1s identical to the one contained in the prior Act with the exception that the later enactment added the lest cleuse, wend In ell exceptfcnsprovided herein the consent of theStste Board orEducation shallbe iirst had end obtained."

H.B. Ho. 133 is themost recent enactment of a long series ofblennial~sppropriationsproviding sid to rural schools. The first ot thesedates back to 1915. Each succeedingRural Aid Len hes sought to terry mt the anera purpoees oi its.predeccssor,with certain changes In the provisions iOr the distributlOn.andadministratiOnor the fund. Judge Cureton in Mumme vs.Merr8, 40 S.W. (Zd) 31, traces the history or these laws end states that their general purpose is to try to equalizs eduoetional opportunities throughout the state. He eaye etpage 37 or ssld opfnion:

"That &al aid epproprletlonshave e reel relationship to the subject of equalizing educational Opportunitiesin the state, end tend to make cur systemmore efficient, there ten be no doubt. It is true that not all rchoolswill be sided, sincemany, because or large scholastic population end local wealth againstwhich taxes hare been levied,may not 

### need the aid, end are, therefore,hot within the purposes of the Act.* Judge Curetcnwe8 discussing the Rural Aid Act passed in 1929, being Chapter 14, CenerelLaws or the Third Celled Session of the Forty-First Legirrlature, one or the lineal ancestors of the Act hereunder consideration.

"The cardinalprinciple of statutory constructions is to ascertain the legislative intent tram the statute.e Couelns vs. Sovereign Camp.W.O.W., Sp+Ciel Supreme Court Or Texes, 1931, 33 S.W. 696. This shouldbe determinedby looking to the entire statute, $opy;2;e. Terrell, Tex. S.,Ct. 1918, 202 S.Y?.727, Greenwood,J.,

"We cannot adopt e constructfon of Section 17, no netter how plainly requiredby its language standing *lone,which would defeat the intent Of the Legislature, in the enactment Of this Act."

Turning to en analysis of this Act as (I whole, wc rind indications that thepurpose of the Legislature, as evidencedby a reading or the entireAct,was to equalize educational opportunity throughout the State by supplementing the income of those schoolswhich, because or inadequate iinancielresources,were unable tomaintain theminimum educational stenderdsprescribed in the Act. Need or iinencial assistance is recitedmany times a8;‘a prerequisite to eligibility for state aid runas.

section 1 of theprior not passed by the Legislatum inMay, 1937 (which sectionwas not emended by H.B. No. 133). states that the Act is *For thepurpose ofprabtlng public school interest and equel-lxing the educational opportunitiesaiford:d*b{ the state to 811 chil-~ dren of scholssticagewithin the State ,

In Section 1 or H.B. No. 133! it is provided:
"*** end no canpliedwii Id shailbe given unless it ten be shomlthet e 1 provieions of this Act lava been

,end that such amount of eid is ectually neede ."
In Section 15, it is recited: ,.

"* * *provided that 12 the schoolhas suificient State end County aveilable funds tomsintein the school for an eight (8)months term according to the salary schedule adoptedby the State Board of Educetion orwith its loon1maintenance tax, to maintain the desired length of term, not to exceed nine (9)months es provided in Section 2, it shell not be eligible to receive aid; * * * "Provided, else, that ell aid granted out of funds herein provided shellbe allotted only on the basis of need, based upon (I proper budgeting or each district~askingfor any rorm or aid."
In Section 16, it is provided:
"All aid granted out of fundsprovided shall ba allotted only on the basis or need based upon en approvedbudget ci each district asking for any form of aid, except es otherwiseprcvide~din this Act." Again in Section 22 appears a similarprovision:
"* * * end all aid shellbe granted on tha basis of need afterproper budgeting, the same as herein provided." section 23 relates in pert to the qualification or lncorporated cities, towns and villages for aid, end after setting out certain requirementsi concludes:

"* * *end whose sslary budget shows e need therafor * * *- Finelly, the emergency clause or theAct commences: "The fact thatmany schools are inneed of additional aid * * *".
As further evidence that the underlying principle of the enttraAct is to grant aid only to those sohools in actual need thereof,we find severalprovisionswhioh disqualify (Ischool by raeson of clrcumstenceswhich tend to indicate that State aid 1s not essential.

In Section 6. it is provided that: "Any schooldistrictwhich shell e.iterOctober 1, 1937, reduce its existing property essessment end/or existing tax r&es, thereby enewing it to participeteunder this Act, shellnot be eligible to receive aid from any of the funds herein provided* * *".In Section 9, it is stated: -Should any school district eligible to receive aid under the provisions of this Actmsintein a Eelery schedule in excess of the selery schedule es determined by the State Superintendentwith the epproval of the State Board of Education. theamount of aid receivedby such school district shellbe reduced by the amount of such excess.w And in Section 12 it is provided that: *Should any schoolwhich would othemise be eligible to receive 

### aidagree, provide cr contract with teethers to 

### paye smaller monthly salaryduring the remainder of the terms following the granting of aid provided cut of local funds, than is paid out or Stete funds, then such school shell forfeit its rights to receive aid."
We have quoted the fOragOing excerpts from the Act at such length because they indicate the expressed end oft-repeated lntentlon of the Legislature throughout the entire Act to limit the expenditures or the $5,500,000.00 therein appropriated to those school dlstrlcts,which by reeson of insufficient resources era unable to msinteln theminimum educational iecilltiesprescribed in the Act. H.B. No. 133 1s entitled: wAmandingRural Aid end Equsllaetion Fund Law.- A camrui study or the law, and the many similar laws preceding itv&l1 show thet by wequelizetion v 1smeent equslisetion or educetionel opportunity for the school children throughcut Texas, end not equeliaetion of the tax burden. There is no word either in the ceptlon or the body ofH. B. No. 133 to justify the letter interpretetion.

In the light or the loregoing analysis Or the Act b8 a whole, what is the fair construction or Section 73

. -ByYne% ?3-cGv~l.uI 'h-b?A*"% %zpd**w. 111 dzbz%cLw ti- *take Into consideretion, in fixing allowances to school districts, any loss sustainedby seid districtby reeson ofthe Faders1 Government buying lends for Hetionel forests, end by reason of the locetlon of saiddistricts orUniversity lends." Other sections of the Act establish certain criteriaby which the State Suparlntendent shallbe 

### guidedin the exercise of his discretion inmaking ellotmemts or the approprietion. Wa believe this Sectionprovides another such crlterle, i.e. that the location or hatlone forests orUniversity lendswithin a school districtmhall be one of the rectors to be taken Into ,considereticn by the State Superintendent in the proration of the'#5,500,000.00 appropriationamong the schcol districts ot the State to the end &hat educational opportunity shellbe more nearly equalized. Secticn 7 continues:

"* * * end the Steta Su erintendent shell be autholzed (underscoringcurs tomake allocationa ted mricts by virtue of losses sustelned by said disP trict by reason of Federal purchase or lend * * *". The language is notmandatory, It does not sey that -he shellmeke. allocations to said districts inthe amount of losses sustained.* Itmerely authorizeshim to take these factors into consideration in making his allocations ofmoneys. NOr do ae sttsch eny peculiar signliicenca to the iect that the University lands era not 

### again mentioned in the second clause. Section 7 continueswith the following language:

a* * *&he amounts to be fixad by the State Superintendent basedupon existing iects and circum-
-- 1. ..L__* >I-*-,^&- "This language.we believe,precludes en interpretation that those school districts containingUniversity lends orNetional forests should be removed from the application or the otherprovisions or the Act.

The concluding clause of Section 7 readr: "And in all exceptionsprovided herein the consent of the State Board ofEducation shellbe first hed end obteined.w It is not withcut signlficanoe thet this olause did not appear in the prior not

### passedrive months eerlier, but we8 added ior the first time in House Bill **NO.** 133. This gect, wc think, lndlcetes en intention on thepert of the Legislature to remove any possible doubt es to the applicetion' to Section 7 of the general intent, expressed repestedly throughmt other sactima of the Act, that the edministration or this &ate aid fund ahall be under the supervisory end discrationery direction or the Stete Board ofEducetion. It is so steted, in Section 1 or the prior Act (S.B.No.185, Regulsr Session of the Forty-fifth Laglsleture. 19371: e* * *to be allotted en expended by the State Super4ntandentunder the direction or th G tataBoard or Educet1on.v The authority thereby granted is limited 'onlyby expressprovisions or theAot, end we do not believe that the language of Section 7 can be construed 80 es to remove from the administration or the funds by the State Superintendent end the Board of Education, those school districts which have eitherNational forest8 orUniversity lends within their boundaries.

-The Lagielature.elone is to judgewhet meens are necessary snd eppropriete for a purpDae which the Constitutionmakes legitimate. The legisletlva determination of themethods, restrictions, end regulations is final, except when so arbitrary es to be violative of the constitutional rights of the clt1zen.e Cumton, J., M.nmnevs. Nerrs, S. Ct. or TeXes, 1931, 4G S.W. (26) 31, at page 36~.

It 1s cur opinion that Section 7 of H. B.'No. 133 euthoriMS the Stete Superintendent to take into considerationthe presence ofUniversity lends endNetional forestswithin e schooldistrict es one of the lsotors in determining the need of that district, but that' suchdistrict must meet all the requirements set cut in other sections of the Act in order to qualify ior State aid. The feet thet a district comes within the purview of Section 7 does not grant it immunity frcm the remaining provisions of the Act. Subject to the above limitetions,~the'welght tobe attached to thepresence orUniversity lends or Nation81 forests within s district Is left to the discretion of the State Superintendentunder the supervisionot the state Boerd
or Equelization.
Yours very truly
AlT0RNF.Y GEhERAL CF TEXAS

BY Welter R.:Koch

Assistant



### BY

WRE:FG Glenn R. Lewis Assistant

Thie opinionhas been oonsidered in conieranca, epproved, end orderedracorded.


### GERALDC. MANN ATTORNEY GENERAL GF TEXAS