OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Gee. 19. iheppard 

Coiugtroller of Zublio z,eoounte 

Austin ) Texas 

Sear Jr: 

1939, you direct 

quest our ojdn 

frm in :Latego 

lng the axiete 

reads in part: 

on and aerclnd property in said dlsordsnce aith Seotion 10 

I or the stntc constitution &all be, and are hereby relaased 

for s period of twenty-f lvs (25) years 

iis hereinafter provided, from the gayant or tares levied for State purpxss 

ln said two dletricts 2s ioliows: 

“1. * ,A1 of the ttats ad valorss 
Honorable Coo. i3. Sheppard, gagu 2 

taxas levlcd SOS State ?urgosee a~oinat 

thr inhabitant8 end property in commi8sloners ~rsclncts Nos. one, two and 

tour or &taC;orda county curd &n ail or 

..hwton County, including the roiling 

stock belonging to railroad com~anles, 

which shall be ascertained and a?portlQned a3 ?rovlded by law. 

wiec. 3. The tax es3083ors 0r 

said county or ir;utsgorda and eald 

county 0r :#harton, 3hall each, respeotively, awes8 ror taxetion the poparty end geraom, firm, cospanles end 

assoclatisns of persons la their respeotive districts above derinsd in 

the usuel muher as required by ltw, 

am2 the tax coilectors of each of said 

countlee shall, or sbail not, collect 

the said Ctnte taxes, in said dietricte, 

a3 he my be ordered end directed to do 

by the Comptroller of ?ubllc i&~~uhts 

ti3 herelnufter pmvlded.” 

The imt also provided that such relief should 

he conditioned upon the voters ) resfdfng ln the aifeoted 

>reolnots, voting an issue or bond8 at least equal to the 

anout of taxes released. It 1s our understanding that 

the bon.18 were voted. 

Jencite 3111 No. 261, chapter 162, F.egular :easlon, Jiith Loglelature, wae very slnilar to said tienate 

3111 X0. 54, except that said kenate Bill No. 2.U released 

the ichabitehtu and property in the oounty of Hidalgo from 

the sayrc-nt of ;tate ad v&lores taxes for A gerlcd of 45 

years, euah release covering the whole of H$dal@ County 

instead of only three precincts a3 was the case or tbs 

ktagorda County release. In the oaso of Sheppard v. 

hidal~o Co&&y, 821 ,. 17.. (Ed) 649, the Supreme Court, ln 

cln opinion by Judge .Geman, Co.mlssloner, held thi t said 

;ehate 3lil No. 281, the Hidalgo County release, ~23 void; 

however, House 3111 No. 101, chapter 4G1, =aga 1594, Firat 

ahd ;,;c,or;d Gail-d ,aasions, 44th Legislature, a??arently 

repaved the questions resulting in such holding, and on 

aotlon for rehearins the Gupraxe Court, ctilling attentlou 
&&able Geo. H. Shospard, page 3 

to said ~ioi~34 Sill No. 101, in 90 5. 2;. (2d) 811, wlthdrew its said fOr%r opinion. The 44th Leglelature, in 

Iiouse all1 No. 114, chapter 402, pago 1598, First and 

second Called Sesslxm, 44th Legislature, xade en mended 

grant of the State ad valoreg tax4s collected in preclnctx 

Nos. 1, 2 and 4 Sor the purpose of resavkg the questions 

thua rtilsed by the Suprese Court in its o;lnion in 83 5;. ; . 

:I-“’ 049* ‘Y,e shall assusie, however, tba t said Senate 9111 

0. 54 was conetltutlonal. 

In our oglnion No. O-287 ,~ addressed to Honorable 

George ii. SheQperd, Congtroller of :‘ubLlc .kccouhts, we 

held that the Sthto WYS not due to gay auy of ths assetmxmt, fees accruing in hidalgo County during the period 

ihr\t said Senate 3111 No. 281 was in force, except the 

Qro rata amounts due by ths pension and school funds. Envever, in that oplhlon we csllod attention to Article 3538, 

zevlsed Civil Lt-tutes, providing that: 

“Tha Co;nptroller, on receipt of the 

rolls, shall give the assessor an order 

on the collector .of hla county for the 

amount due his by the State for tisdesalng 

the Sate taxes to be paid out of the 

fir-t money collected ror that year,” 

;ind pointed out that since all of the ;taze ad valorem 

taxes levied for State purposes in that county had been. 

released, there was no fund such as that contesplsted by 

said krtlcle 3938, out of which the assoessent fees ordinarily paid by the State could be drawn, onlees it 

should be said that all of such cozUsslons should be 

Qald out of the school fund or pension fund. Since the 

school and pension funds are axpressly ?mvlded by Constiiution (..ztlcle VIII, sectlm 9, aud zticle III, 

section 31) b,e did not believe tbiit lc i(as contemplated 

that the share of the assessment costs ordinsrlly paid 

out of the taxes collected for the State’Y seaera f;md, 

should be xet by withdrawals from the school au46 geneion 

funds. Forever, in then case of Eatagorda County, the 

;tcte ad vaiorern taxes were not released in precinct No. 

Z; hence, there WCS a fund out .~f which tko Ststo’s share 

cf the tisseement coats could be ;ald as 2mvlded by sold 

..rticla 3938. In view of such fact, w do mt believe 

it can be said zht it was contrz?iat&d tti-*, the couuty 

fun.: shguid bear my more than its uauvi sLre of the 

bstiti-es;ent ~~3;s. The county funds received no accre- 

;lons by :eason of the release of the inhabit+mts ehd 
. 

, 

Honorable Gto. ii. “htigard, page 4 

gro;jtrty in psclncts Nos. 1, Z and 4 from the gaymtnt 

0r the state ad valortm tAxeD. 

Our answer to your qutatlon, therefore, is that 

the state should have ?ald the uamt part of the aaatwmnt 

fees as it would have paid ii Senate 3111 No. 54 bad never 

betn enacted. 

au 

(sitcned) 

Glenn 2. Lewis i&slstsnt