Hon. L, A. Woods 

Stats Superintendent 

De$mrtment of Education 

Aurtin, Texas 

Attn.% 'Hon. T.M, Triable 

First Assistant 

Dear Sir: 

opinion l$* v-573 

Bet .Status OP ~Xdinbmg 

JunXor College and 

authority 0P a junior 

college district to 

vote bonds POP purchase oP buildings. 

We re$er'to your letter to which warn attached 

a letter signed by Mr. H, A.,Eodges,, Associate Director' 

of Edinbup 

(1 7 

Junior College, wherein inquiry is made 

whether the board of trustees of said junior college 

may set up a seprrate junior college district to be goaemed by the board of.trustees of the~~Edinb&g Consolidated Independent School District,, and (2) whether a 

junior college district mag,vote and idsue bonds P&P the 

purpose of purchasing school buildings as well as POP, 

the construction or erection of same* 

We dare advised that the IWnbprg Junior Coilege'was created in 1927 in accordance with Section 7' 

of Senate"Bill~276; Acts 1926, 39th Leglsiatu?e, Flrst 

Called Session, Ch8pter 3, 8 special law vaUdati 

ci&atiim oi~the Edinburg'conbolidated Indopend&nt %El 

District. Section 7 provides that the board of trustees 

of the said independent school district shall govern and 

control the junior college SO establishedr We assume Por 

purposes of this oplnlon th8t said junior college was 

crsated 8nd exists by virtue of full compliance with.laws 

applicable thereto. 

Article 281 h, 

? 

Sec. 16, Vernon*m 'Civil Statutea, enacted by the 1st Legislature, Acta~l929, no- 

&ar'Sersion, House Bill 10,' Chspter 290, ptiovides in 

part% 

"Any public junior colleue now or- 

" " g8niz4d 8nd conducted ii n the State of 

Texas which has been,ln actual operation 

prior to January 1, 1929; or which Is $8; 

cognized as a stsndard junior college by 
Hon. L. A. Woods, pFg3 2 (v-573) 

the State Department of Fducatlon is hereby validated and may, by action of Its 

board of trustees, choose to be governed 

by the provi ions 

of Acts 7 

of this act (Chap. 290 

1929 , and receive the privileges 

of the safe, at any time that it may desire 

to do so. (Matter in parenthesis added). 

See'also Article 2815L (Small 11, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. 

In Opinion No. O-4198, at page 4, this ofPice 

advised that as to certain junior colleges which existed prior to ~the enactment of Chapter 290 of the Fortyfirst Legislature, Regular Session, this law through the 

adoption of Section 16 thereof, in effect, empowered the 

boards of trustees OP such junior colleges to create a 

junior college district by simple resolution, and that 

the ultimate effect of Section 15 is to create a junior 

college district. 

We have not been apprised whether or not the 

board of trustees of Edinburg Junior College h8s .adopted the provisions of said Section 16. If it has not 

acted as provided in Section 16, then Section 7 ofenate Bill 276 under which the college was created, provides that the college shall be governed by the board 

of trustees of the Edinburg Consolidated Independent 

School District. If it & or does aat as provided in 

Section 16 and the college district so oreated (See A. 

G.-Opinion No. o-4198) is now governed by the r;;m;;ons 

of Chapter 290 of Acts 1929, as amended, then E 

2815h, Sec. 4, is applicable in the determination of 

what board or body shall control the district in question. 

Article 2815h, Sec. 4, provides tbet the 

Board of Education of such independent school district 

shall be the governing body of such junior college district. 

There being no law authorizing 8 junFor college district whose boundaries ar4 coincident with the 

boundaries of an ihdepehdent school district to provide 

POP a board of trustees comprised of persons other than 

the board membera of the independent school’distrlct, no 

such authority exists in the independent school dlatrict 

board or in the voters of the district. Such power haa 

not been delegated or prescribed by the Legislsture. 
. - 

Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 3 (v-573) 

However, a union junior-college, a county 

junior college, or a joint oounty junior college (8s 

distinguished from a junior college district established by an independent school district or City that has 

assumed control of its schools) is governed, administered and controlled by a board of sevenjunior college 

trustees elected from the junior college district by 

the qualified voters in said district. Sets. 20 and 4 

of Article 2815h, Vernon's Civil Statutes, 

.~ With respect to pour bond question, Section 1 

of Article 2%l3h-3b, Vernon's Civil Statutes, enacted by 

the Fiftieth Legislature (Ch. 70, Acts 1947, R.S.), provides in part as follows: 

vFrom and after the passage of this Act, 

the. governing boards of all public Junior 

Colleges organized, created.and established um3er the laws' of Texas, in, any manner, 

shall have the power to,issue bonds POPS 

the construction and equipment of schools 

buildings and the acquisition of sites 

therefor. . en See also Section 7,,Article 2815h, Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

The authority of the governing boards.oS public 

junior college districts to issue negotiable bonds is 

thus limited to the purposes designated in the Act: namely, SOP the construction and equipment of school buildings and the acquisition of sites therefor, San Antonio 

Union Junior ,Colle e District v. Daniel (Tex. Sup., Dec. 

3, 19471, 206, %W+cf2d) 995a 

The-question thus presents itself as to whether bonds~ may be issued for the purchase of school buildings under a grant of powerfor the construction of such 

buildings. This question has never been squarely before 

the courts of this State, Therefore, we have had to resort to decisions of other jurisdictions in an effort to' 

arrive at the correct conclusion. 

In the case of Seymour v. City of Tacoax, 6 

Wash. 138+ 32 P. 1077, the Supreme Court of Washington 

hsd fop consideration 8 statute which authorized the is& 

suance of bonds POP the construction of certain improvements. Thst court held that "cons,truction" in the statute meant 'provide,.! and that the city could issue bonda 

thereunder to purchase the improvements. We quote Sror 

the decision,oS the court as follows: 
Hon. L. A. Woods, page 4 (v-573) 

"Th4 P081 purpose of this act would have . . . . -. _.. Deen Demer expresaecl naa tne wora 'provide' been used, but w4 think the word 

'construct,' under all the circumstances, 

may be accorded a similar meaning, rather 

than to defeat the operation of what is 

probably the most important feature of 

this law, upon the technical algnlSicance 

of a word, where it can hardly be contended that any one was likely to be deceived. 

As the constitution has not indicated the 

degree of particularity necessary to express in its title the subject of an act, 

the courts should not embarrass legislation 

by technical interpretations based upon 

mere form or phraseology. The objections 

should be grave, and the conflict between 

the statute 8nd the constitution palpable, 

before the judiciary should disregard a 

legislative enactment upon the sole ground 

that the double subjegt was not fully expressed in the title. 

Similarly, the Supreme Court of Id8ho in the 

case of Ostrander v. City of Salmon, 20 Idaho 153, 117 

P. 692, held 80 Pollows: 

"There is one other question presented 

in the argument upon this appeal which 

is relied upon, which we deem proper to 

dispose of, inasmuch 8s the same question 

might be raised in case the proposed bond 

issue is again submitted. It is contended by the appellant that the municipality 

has no legal authority to purchase waterworks already constructed, or make the same 

a part of the muncipal water sgs,tem. 'phis 

argument Is based upon the provisions of 

subdivision 1, Sec. 2315, Rev. Codes: 'To 

provide for the construction and maintenance 

of necessary waterworks and supplying the 

same with water.' It is urged that the 

word lconstructlonl as used in this subdivision will not authorize a municipality 

to purchase works 8lre8dy constructed. we 

think it was not intended by the Legislai 

ture, by the language thus used, to prohibit a municipality from purchasing waterworks already constructed and to make the 
. . 

Hon. L. A. Woods, page5" (v-573)' 

same.all or a part of a general water ayatern for- such municipality. The very fact 

that the municipality is authorized to provide for the construction 8nd nsintenance 

oP necessary waterworks Implies authority 

to purchase works already,constructed, 8nd 

to make the same all, or anpart of, a general system of waterworks. ,, 

It is seen that both these decisions hold, in 

effect, that the authority to issue bonds for the construction.oP improvements includes 81~0 the 

such improvements. Similarly, it is stated 

on Municiual Coroorations, Section 2438, that "express 

power to lssus bonds to provide SOP the~conatruction 

and maintenance' .of,waterworks include1 power to issue 

bonds to purchcrse existing waterworksa 

And the Supreme, Court of the United States in 

the case of Swigart vi Baker, 229 U.S, 193, 57 L. Ed. 

11146, 33 Sup, Ct., 646, states the Pollowing~ 

" dl Permission to nconstruct internal'i&provements" warranted the pvchase of a plant already built II . . 

'(citing with approval the Seymour case*) 

'See also State va Thompsort (Ho.), 53 S.w.(2d) 

273. 

Although we Sully recognize that there are 

decisions of,.other states which may be in conPlict with 

this principle, the courts of Texashave definitely indicated that the rule of law announced by the WIshington 

and Idaho courts is the one which will be followed here* 

In the, case oP,.Galveston Theatres, zinc. v, Larsen, 124 

g.w.(2d) 936, the Galveclton Court of Civil Appesls in 

determining the sufflciency~ OP the word 'conatructedv in 

a speoial issue submitted-to the jury held that the alble 

me8nt "provide." The court cited with approval the above 

quoted Seymour case,. 

And in,the ca 8 of City of Oayton v. Allred, 

123 Tex. 60, 68 S.W.(2dy 172, our Supreme Court had for 

consideration theprovisions of Article 1112; Vernon's 

Civil Statutes, which,prohibits the incumbering of a 

city-utility system for more,than $5;000, except ,Por pUrchase money or to refund existing indebtedness., unless 

suthorized by a majority vote of the qualified voters 
Hon. L. A. Woods, page 6 (V-573) 

of the city. The court held that construction money wea 

the aem es purchase money. We quote from the decision 

es followar 

II 

. It is then further apeciflcelly &vided that such system shall not 

be incumbered for more than $5,000, except 

for purchase money, etc., without such vote, 

"In the instant case the City of Dayton 

has no sewer system end expect3 to use the 

money derived from the sale of these bonda 

in the constructlon, acquisition, end completion of-em. It is our opinion that 

such e record justifies the conclusion that, 

in so far es the proposed sewer system hepe 

involved is concerned, the mortgage thereon 

Is for purchase money within the mes,ning of 

Article 1112. Vhlle it La for more .than 

$5,000, being for purchase money, it is not 

required by this statute that e vote be 

had. (Emphasis added) 

Although neither of these cases directly enswers the question which you ask, it la our opinion 

that the courts have followed the principle that stetutory authority to issue bonds to construct public improvements include3 the authority to issue bonds to purahase such improvements unleaa the atietute would lndicete otherwise. 

It seems clear to us that this prlneiple la 

wholly in Gonsonance with the legislative intent, which, 

after all, $a the final end ultimate goal to reeoh in 

all questions of atetutory construction. For example, 

suppose the situation where a junior college dlatrlat 

could purchase e building entirely suitable for school 

purposea; however, if it were compelled to build the 

same type of building, the cost would be much greater 

than the purchase prioe of the building that had been 

offered. Could it be said that the Legislature would 

have intended that the district would have to construct 

the building, rather than effect a subatantlal saving 

by purchasing e building already construoted? The answer is obvious. It 1~ our opinion that the Legislature, by the language construction end equipment of 

school buildings end the acquisition of sites therefor,* 

meant that the governing board of a junior colle e dlatrict could provide e sohool. plant for the distr f ct, and 
lion, L. A, Woods, page 7 (V-573) 

that this could be accomplished either by the construc- 

\ tion or purchsse of school buildings. 

SuMMArtY 

If the board of truafeea of EdinOP does 

16, Art- _ 

burg Junfor College has adopted, 

adopt, the provisions of Section 

icle 2815h, VernonEn Civil Statutes, tne 

effect thereof is to create a junior college distrIcta 

ion No0 O-4198, 

Attorney Generals3 Opinb 

Texas public junior college districts 

may vote and issue bonds for the purchase 

of buildings already constructed to be 

used for school purposes. Arts. 281521 end 

2815h-3b, V, C, Se 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

.&$?LAFW 

Chester E. Olliaon 

Assistant 

CEOsGWSss"bbsw 

fi 

eorge W, Spark 

Assistant