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 of University lands and National forests 

within (1 School District a.8 OILC of the factors in determining the need of that district, but that such district must;!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 

County Attorney. Reagan County 

Big Lake, Texas 

Gentlemen: 

Opinion No. 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&-fifth Legislature, Second Called Session, and particularly 

Section 7, thereof, as it affects the right or a school district 

containing Unirerstty lands to receive State aid under said Act, 

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 submitted by 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 wes passed by the Second Called Session of the Forty-fifth Legislature ln October, 1937. 

It constitutes a re-enactment, with 801118 changes and sdditions, ot 

all except the appropriation section or the Act passed rive months 

earlier by the same Legislature at its regular session. The earlier 

Act is Senate Bill No. 183 Chapter 474, Acts Forty-fifth Legislature, Regular Session, entitled *Rural Aid and Equalization Fund 

Appropriation.w 
section 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 sustained by said district by 

reason of the Federel Government buying land icr 

~e6ionel forests, end by reeson of the locstion in 

raid districts of University lends, end the State 

Superintendent shell be authorized to make allocations to raid distrfcts by rlttue of losses suetained by said district by reeson of Federel purchase or lends, the amants to be fixed by the 

Stste Superintendent based upon exfsting facts end 

circumstances applicable to all other school dlstrlcts, end In ell exceptions provided herein the 

consent or the State Board or Xducetion shell be 

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 exceptfcns provided herein the consent of the Stste Board 

or Education shall be iirst had end obtained." 

H.B. Ho. 133 is the most recent enactment of a long series 

of blennial~sppropriations providing sid to rural schools. The first 

ot these dates back to 1915. Each succeeding Rural Aid Len hes sought 

to terry mt the anera purpoees oi its.predeccssor, with certain 

changes In the provisions iOr the distributlOn.and administratiOn or 

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 et page 37 or ssld opfnion: 

"That &al aid epproprletlons have e reel 

relationship to the subject of equalizing educational Opportunities in the state, end tend to 

make cur system more efficient, there ten be no 

doubt. It is true that not all rchools will be 

sided, since many, because or large scholastic 

population end local wealth against which taxes 

hare been levied, may not need the aid, end are, 

therefore, hot within the purposes of the Act.* 

Judge Curetcn we8 discussing the Rural Aid Act passed in 

1929, being Chapter 14, Cenerel Laws or the Third Celled Session of 

the Forty-First Legirrlature, one or the lineal ancestors of the Act 

here under consideration. 

"The cardinal principle 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 should be determined by 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 required by 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 the purpose of the Legislature, as evidenced by a reading 

or the entire Act, was to equalize educational opportunity throughout 

the State by supplementing the income of those schools which, because 

or inadequate iinanciel resources, were unable to maintain the minimum educational stenderds prescribed in the Act. Need or iinencial 

assistance is recited many times a8;‘a prerequisite to eligibility for 

state aid runas. 

section 1 of the prior not passed by the Legislatum in May, 

1937 (which section was not emended by H.B. No. 133). states that the 

Act is *For the purpose of prabtlng public school interest and equel- 
lxing the educational opportunities aiford:d*b{ the state to 811 chil-~ 

dren of scholsstic age within the State , 

In Section 1 or H.B. No. 133! it is provided: 

"*** end no 

canplied wi 

i 

Id shail be 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 school has suificient 

State end County aveilable funds to msintein the 

school for an eight (8) months term according to 

the salary schedule adopted by the State Board of 

Educetion or with its loon1 maintenance 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 shell be allotted only on 

the basis of need, based upon (I proper budgeting 

or each district~asking for any rorm or aid." 

In Section 16, it is provided: 

"All aid granted out of funds provided shall 

ba allotted only on the basis or need based upon 

en approved budget ci each district asking for any 

form of aid, except es otherwise prcvide~d in this 

Act." 

Again in Section 22 appears a similar provision: 

"* * * end all aid shell be granted on tha basis of 

need after proper 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 the Act commences: 

"The fact that many schools are in need of additional aid * * *". 

As further evidence that the underlying principle of the 

enttra Act is to grant aid only to those sohools in actual need 

thereof, we find several provisions whioh disqualify (I school by 

raeson of clrcumstences which tend to indicate that State aid 1s 

not essential. 

In Section 6. it is provided that: 

"Any school district which shell e.iter October 

1, 1937, reduce its existing property essessment 

end/or existing tax r&es, thereby enewing it to 

participete under this Act, shell not 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 Act msintein a Eelery schedule in excess of the selery schedule es determined by the State Superintendent with the epproval of the State Board of Education. the amount of 

aid received by such school district shell be reduced 

by the amount of such excess.w 

And in Section 12 it is provided that: 

*Should any school which would othemise be 

eligible to receive aid agree, provide cr contract 

with teethers to pay e smaller monthly salary during 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 the minimum educational iecillties prescribed in the Act. 

H.B. No. 133 1s entitled: wAmanding Rural Aid end Equsllaetion Fund 

Law.- A camrui study or the law, and the many similar laws preceding it v&l1 show thet by wequelizetion v 1s meent 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 of H. 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 

. -By Yne% ?3-cGv~l.uI 'h-b ?A*"% %zpd**w. 111 dzbz%cLw ti- 

*take Into consideretion, in fixing allowances to school districts, 

any loss sustained by seid district by reeson of the Faders1 Government buying lends for Hetionel forests, end by reason of the locetlon of said districts or University lends." Other sections of the 

Act establish certain criteria by which the State Suparlntendent 

shall be guided in the exercise of his discretion in making ellotmemts or the approprietion. Wa believe this Section provides another 

such crlterle, i.e. that the location or hatlone forests or University lends within a school district mhall be one of the rectors to 

be taken Into ,considereticn by the State Superintendent in the proration of the'#5,500,000.00 appropriation among the schcol districts 

ot the State to the end &hat educational opportunity shell be more 

nearly equalized. Secticn 7 continues: 

"* * * end the Steta Su erintendent shell be autholzed (underscoring curs to make allocationa ted 

mricts by virtue of losses sustelned by said disP 

trict by reason of Federal purchase or lend * * *". 

The language is not mandatory, It does not sey that -he shell meke. 

allocations to said districts in the amount of losses sustained.* 

It merely authorizes him to take these factors into consideration 

in making his allocations of moneys. NOr do ae sttsch eny peculiar 

signliicenca to the iect that the University lands era not again 

mentioned in the second clause. Section 7 continues with the following language: 

a* * *&he amounts to be fixad by the State Superintendent based upon existing iects and circum- 

-- 1. ..L__* >I-*-,^&- " 
This language. we believe, precludes en interpretation 

that those school districts containing University lends or Netional forests should be removed from the application or the other provisions or the Act. 

The concluding clause of Section 7 readr: "And in all 

exceptions provided herein the consent of the State Board of Education shell be first hed end obteined.w It is not withcut signlficanoe thet this olause did not appear in the prior not passed rive 

months eerlier, but we8 added ior the first time in House Bill NO. 

133. This gect, wc think, lndlcetes en intention on the pert 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 of Educetion. 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 

Super4ntandent under the direction or th G tata Board or Educet1on.v 

The authority thereby granted is limited 'only by express provisions 

or the Aot, 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 either National forest8 or University lends 

within their boundaries. 

-The Lagielature.elone is to judge whet meens are necessary snd eppropriete for a purpDae which the Constitution makes legitimate. The legisletlva determination of the methods, restrictions, 

end regulations is final, except when so arbitrary es to be violative 

of the constitutional rights of the clt1zen.e Cumton, J., M.nmne vs. 

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 consideration the presence 

of University lends end Netional forests within e school district es 

one of the lsotors in determining the need of that district, but that' 

such district 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 to be attached to the presence or University 

lends or Nation81 forests within s district Is left to the discretion 

of the State Superintendent under the supervision ot 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 opinion has been oonsidered in conieranca, epproved, 

end ordered racorded. 

GERALD C. MANN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL GF TEXAS