Honorable M.H. Barton

County Attorney RuskCounty Henderson, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion NumberO-6720 Re: Vote required for city or county to issue bonds for city or county hospital. Also, from what rendition sheet shall list of qualified voters be taken?

This is In reply to your letter of July 1.6, 1945, which reads as,follows: "Will you kindly give meanopinion in regards to a city or county voting abond issue for a city or county hospital? Does it require a two-thirds majority or j,ust amajority of the qualified taxpaying voters whenthe tax rate would not be raised anyhigher than the present rate? Thelaws are conflicting, in someplaces it says parks, etc., two-thirds majority, where other places It says roads andmunicipal bulldings Is amajority. "Abond election that would be held in September, 1945would the qualified voters be taken from the rendition sheet for 1944 or the one rendered In 1945.”

Article 4478, Chapter 5, Title 71, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, 1925, provides, in part, as follows:page #s, (0-6720)

court of anycounty shall have a county hospital andto enhospitals for the care and Honorable M.Ii. Barton,

“The commissioners power to establish large anyexisting treatment of persons suffering from any illness, disease or injury, subject to the provisions of this chapter. At Intervals of not less than twelve months, ten per cent of the qualified property tax paying voters of a county maypetition such court to provide for the establishing or enlarging of a county hospital, in which event said court within the time designated in such petition shall submit to such voters at aspecial or regular election the proposition of Qsuing bonds in such aggregate amountas maybe designated in said petition for the establishing or enlarging of such hospital. Wheneverany such proposition shall receive a majority of the votes of the qualified property tax payers voting at such election, said commissioners sourt shall establish andmaintain such hospital andshall have the following powers: * * 46.”
In consideration of the provisions of Article 4478, you are advised that It requires only amajority vote of the taxpayers of the county to authorize the officers of aoounty to issue bonds for the establishing or enlarging of a county hospital. If the city involved In your question is aHomeRule city, then It would comeunder the provisions of Section 10, Article 1175, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which provides, in part as follows:

“10. Thepower to control andmanagethe finances of any such city; to prescribe Its fiscal year and fiscal arrangements; the power to issue bonds upon the credit of the city for the purpose of making permanent public improvements or for other public purposes in the amountandto the extent provided by such charter, andconsistent with the Constitution of this State; provided, that said bonds shall have first been authorized by amajority vote by the duly qualified property taxpaying voters at anelection held for that purpose, * * * ”votingHonorable M.H.Barton,page#3, (0-6720)

Therefore, in considera,tion of the provlslon,s of Article 1175, if the city, Involved in your question is aHomeRule city, it would require only amajorlty~vote to authorize the city officials to issue bonds for the establishment of a city hospital. Wehave been unable to find any specific statute or ruling of the courts of t,his State that determines clearly and emphatically whether a city, not aHomeRule city andoperating under the,generals .law
, could issue hospital bonds upona majority or a two-thirds vote. TheTwenty-sixth Session of the Texas Legislature, 1899, enacted Chapter LXVII, andSection 1of said chapter provides as follows:

“Section 1. Hereafterit shall be unlawful for the commissioners’ court of anycounty, or the city council of any,Incorporated town or city In this State to issue the bonds of said county for any purpose authorized by law, unless aproposition for the issuance of such bonds shall have been first submitted to avote of the qualified voters, who are property taxpayers of said county, incorporated town or city, andunless amajority of the said qualified property taxpayers, voting at said election, is in favor of the proposition for the issuance of bonds, then the said bonds shall not be issued. If the proposition for the issuance of bonds be sustained by amajority of the said property taxpayers voting at said eleotlon, then the said bonds shall be authorized andshall be issued by the said oommissioners tcourt; provided, that this act shall not be construed to authorize andrender valid bonds without being first submitted to the Attorney-General andcertified to by himas nowrequired by law.” ThesameLegislature, namely, Twenty-sixth Legislature, enacted Chapter CXLIX,andSeotion 1of said Act provides as f0110ws:Honorable M.H. Barton, page #4 (0-6720)

"Section 1. Hereafter it shall be unlawful for the commissioners' court of any county, or the city council of any incorporated town or city in this State, to issue the bonds of said county, or townor city, for anypurpose authorized by law, unless aproposition for the Issuance of such bonds shall have been first submitted to a vote of the qualified voters, whoare property taxpayers of said county, town or city, andunless a majority of the said qualified property taxpayers, voting at said election, is in favor of the proposition for the issuance of bonds, then the said bonds shall not be issued. If the proposition for the issuance 'of bonds be sustained by amajority of the said property taxpayers, voting at said election, then the said bonds shall be authorized andshall be issued by the said commissioners' court, or said town or city council; provided, that this Act shall not be construed to authorize andrender valid bonds without being first submitted to the Attorney-General, andcertified to byhim, as nowrequired by law." TheRevised Civil Statutes of 1911 combine Chapter LXVII andChapter CXLIX,makingthemArticle 605, which provides as follows: "Article 605. Election onbonds required.--- It shall be unlawful for the commissioners' court of any county, or the city or town council of any Incorporated town or city in this state, to issue the bonds of said county, or town or city, for anypurpose authorized by law, unless aproposition for the issuance of such bonds shall have been first submitted to a vote ofthe qualified voters, whoare property taxpayers of said county, town or city; andunless amajority of the said qualified property taxpayers, voting at said election, be in favor of the proposition for the issuance of bonds, then the said bonds shall not be issued. If the proposition for the issuance of bonds be sustained byamajority of such property taxpayers, voting at such election, then such bonds shall be authorized andshall be issued by such commissioners' court, or city or town council; provided, that thisHonorable M.H. Barton, page #5 (0-6720)

article shall not be construed to authorize andrender valid bonds without being first submitted to the attorney general, andcertified to by him, as'now required by law. (Acts 1899, pp. 103 and258.)” Thecodifiers of the 1925Revised Civil Statutes divided Article 605 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1911 andmadetwo articles of the same, namely, Article 701 of Chapter 1, Title 22, andArticle 719 of Chapter 2, Title 22, which articles nowprovide as follows: "Article 701. Shall hold election. -- Thebonds of a county or anincorporated city or town shall never be issued for anypurpose unless aproposition for the Issuance of such bonds shall have been first submitted to the qualified voters whoare property taxpayers of such county, city or town. Acts 1899, pp. 103and 258." "Article 719. Requisite vote. -- If amajority of the property tax paying voters voting at such election shall vote in favor of the proposition, then such bonds shall be thereby authorized andshall be issued by the commissioners court. Acts 1899, pp. 103 and 258. 'I Article 719, as placed in the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925, pertains only to bonds authorized by Article 718. Evldently the codifiers of the 1925 Civil Statutes intended to place a similar provision as contained in Article 719 under Chapter 1, Title 22, which relates to'beneral Provisions and Regulations," but through oversight failed to Include such a provision. In Runnels v. State, 77 S. W.458, 459, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas hadbefore it a similar question, and wequote from said opinion as follows: "In Braun v. State, 40Tex. Cr. App. 286, 49. S.W. 6~3, it washeld that, although the codifiers had failed to bring forward in the newCodecertain provisions of anoriginal act, yet the court, In considering anarticle brought forward, could look back to the original act to construe the same, andascertain Its meaningwith reference to another provision of the Code in the samechapter. In thatHonorable M.H. Barton, Page #6 (O-6720)

connection the court'quoting from Black on Interpretation of Laws, pp. 368, 369, said: 'Whenthe language of the Code or revision as it stands would lead to absurdity or highly improbable results, it maybe compared with the language of the original statute to ascertain if the phraseology has not been changed bymistake or inadvertence.' So, without holding that wecan interpolate or bring forward a portion of anarticle that formerly existed as a part thereof after the samehas been left off for somanyyears, so as to constitute it apart of the article in question, wehold, in accordance with the principle indorsed In Braun's Case, that wecan look back to the original statute in order to determine whether the samewas left off by mistake or inadvertence, andto aid in construing and interpreting the present Act. * * *'
Weare, therefore, of the opinion that the codifiers of the 1925Revised Civil Statutes "by mistake or inadvertence" failed to bring forward andplace under the provisions of Chapter 1, Title 22, the required numberof votes necessary to authorize a city to issue bonds under said chapter. 'Ithough the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925failed to provide for the required vote, the Attorney General's Department andthe Bar of the State of Texas have consistently since 1925 approved all bond issues coming under the provisions of Chapter 1, Title 22, whensaid bond issues were authorized by amajority vote. Taking into consideration the legislative history of Articles 701 and 719, the authority above quoted andthe policy of the Attorney General's Department andthe Bar of this State, weare of the opinion that only amajority vote is required to authorize a city to issue bonds for the establishment of ahospital. Article 7151, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides, in part, as follows: "All property shall be listed for taxation between January 1~andApril 30of each year, whenrequired by the assessor, with reference to the ouantlty held or ownedon the first day of January In the year for which the property is required to be listed_ .. -

Honorable M.H. Barton, page #7 (O-6720)

or rendered. Anyproperty purchased or acquired onthe first bay of January shall be listed by or for the person purchasing or acquiring it. **+'I Article 1043,'Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides as follows: "Each person, partnership snd corporation owning property within the limits of the corporation shall, between January first andApril first of each year, handto the city assessor andcollector afull and complete sworn inventory of the property possessed or controlled by him, her or them, within said limits onthe first day of January of the current year. If the fiscal year of amunicipal corporation runs otherwise than the calendar year, such corporation maybyordinance require said inventory to be madeas of the first day of such fiscal year, in which case the inventory shall be handed to the city assessor andcollector within the.first three months of the fiscal year. Acts 1875, p. 113; G;L. vol. 8, p. 485; Acts 1934, 43ra Leg., 3rd C.S., p. 50, ch. 27, sec. 1." Considering the above quoted articles, weare of the oplnIon that the qualified voters of acounty or city voting at a bona election to be held in September, 1945, should be taken from the rendition sheet for the year 1945.
Very truly yours ATTORREY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS /i/ R. J. Long

BY R. J. Long

Assistant RJL-s-eb APPROVED

JULY31, 1945 /s/ Ocie Speer, Acting

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS (Acting) APPROVED OPIyIoN COMMITTEE BY G.W.B. Chairman