The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-02-26
MORRIS TURNS DOWN
 CITY'S PETITION
CLAIMS CONSTITUTION WILL NOT ALLOW PAYMENT OF CLAIM ON ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND PRO- VlDED BY MUNICIPAL CODE.

Accompanying the claim of the City of Birmingham for the sum of s15,000 of the road and bridge taxes collected by the county, which the municipal code provides the city is entitled to, County Auditor Robert A Morris mailed the following formal statement to the board of revenue yesterday:
 ITO the Honorable Board of Revenue,
 city.
 "Gentlemen-I return you herewith the claim of the City of Birmingham for the sum of $l5,000 of the road and bridge taxes collected by the county in accord ance with a provision of the municipal code adopted by the last legislature, with the following indorsement;
 Section 215 of the constitution of Ala bama provides among other things, as fol- lows: Provided further, that to pay any liability or debt now existing against any county, incurred for the erection, construc- ton or maintainance of the necessary public buildings or bridges, or that may hereafter be created for the erection of necessary public buildings, bridges or roads, any county may levy and collect such special taxes not to exceed one fourth of per centum, as may have been or may hereafter be authorized by law, which taxes so levied and collected shall be applied exclusively to the purpose for which the same was levied and collected
 We have here the constitutional au- thority, whereby a county has the right to make levy for the construction, build ing and maintenance of bridges, public buildings and roads throughout the coun- ty, provided that at the time the levies were made there were then existing debts or liabilities, or debts or liabilities there after created for such purposes. The au- thority so conferred by the said section has distinct limitation, as follows: Which said taxes when so levied and col lected shall be applied exclusively to the purposes for which they were levied and collected
 Boards of revenue are charged with the duty of building, constructing and main taining the public roads and bridges In county, not, however, within the corpo- rate limits of any city or town in said county, and for which purpose these levies are made. We are, therefore, bound to presume that when the board made the levies in question, that there were at that time debts or liabilities ex- isting against the county then due, R debts of liabilities contracted for, and to become due for the payment and satis- faction of which these levies were made, hence this having been done by the board for the specific purposes as provided in section 215 of the constitution, and the
 
 no legal disbursement of said funds, in any channel save that provided or stipu- lated in said section, i. e., the building, maintaining and constructing public build ings, bridges and public roads in the coun- ty, and this does not mean, in my opinion, that any part of these funds can be paid to any municipal corporation, the provis- ion of the municipual code to the contrary notwithstanding.
 If there were no such debts existing at the time of the making the levies in question. by the board, or no debts con- tracted for and to become due, pro- vided for in said section of the constitu- ton, then the board has unconstitutional ly levied these taxes, and the taxpayer is entitled to have refunded to him any sum of money so paid by him by virture of said levy.
 Tt may be claimed that there is a law for this claim, and I do not doubt that there is in the municipal code such pro- vision, but I do not think the legislature has the right to pass a law that would conflict with the provisions of the consti- tuition and which 1 think said section of the municipal code does.
 Tn view of the facts as above stated. and unless it can be shown to me that there Is no such conflict, I cannot approve the claim. Very truly yours,
 ROBERT A. MORRIS,
 Auditor.