The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1908-09-19

. lore US, out Dy numerous provisions OF
the act, it is evident that it was the
general purpose of the legislature to
secure to the citizens of the new coun-
ty all the rights and privileges which
pertained to the old. But disregard
ing the provisions of this special act
and looking at the question in the
light of principles fairly we'll estab-
lished by the authorities I reach the
conclusion that the privilege which
the statute secured to Perry County,
can now be extended to Forrest Coun-
ty and that two and a half mills tax
can be extended to the new county
without an election. For, it seems to
me, the privilege thus conferred upon
certain counties stands upon the same
basis as though it had been granted
by a special act of the legislature
That is to say, the construction would
be the same as if a special act had
been conferred upon Perry County, by
name the right to dispense with an
election, assuming, of course, that such
an act would be constitutional, in this
State. Now, it is stated by respect
able authority that: "a special statute
applicable to the territory of certain
county continues applicable to the
part Of such territory afterward set
off for the formation of another coun-
ty, in the absence of repeal express
or implied Of such statute"
II Cyc. 353.
Thus statement of the text rests up
on the case of
Lackawanna Co. VS.. Stevens, los, Pa.
st. 465.
Turning now to this case, it will be
seen that this decision in turn rests
upon the earlier Pennsylvania case of
Parsons VS.. Winslow, 1 Grant 100,
where it is said: Territory or men
once made the objects of legislation
remain subject to the laws imposed
however the names by which they are
designated may be changed" l do
not think the authority of these Penn
sylvania cases is destroyed by the
fact that our Court in Chickasaw Coun-
ty VS.. Sumner County, So Miss. 619
declined to follow the Pennsylvania
Court in it's holding as to the liabil-
ity of the newly created county for
the debts of the parent county. That
is quite a different question from the
one before us now. In my judgment
the quoted statement from Parsons VS..
Winslow, Supra, is sound and advise
that it be followed
Coming now to the question of the
effect of that part of Chapter 72 Of
the Laws of 1908 which reads: PRO
vided, that counties may levy an adj
ditional tax of not exceeding two mills
on the dollar, to provide funds to
maintain the public schools" find no
difficulty in reaching the conclusion |
that this statute was not designed as
substitute for Section 4572 of the |
Code, in the sense that the Code pro-
visions may be disregarded in levying !
the tax. but that it was designated |
merely to place a limit upon the
amount Of tax which the board can
levy acting in accord with the machin-
cry and methods set out in Section
1872. Surely, the Legislature did not
intend in a revenue measure to repeal
or disregard the elaborate system pro-
vided in the Code. The brief state
ment in this revenue act, lacking as
it does all directions as to how the
tax shall be levied and collected, and
what property shall be subject to it
can not furnish complete scheme in
itself and when resort is had to the
Code provisions for direction in one
particular, necessarily all the stipula-
lions therein contained would be ap-
plicable.
The interesting question presents it.
self as to whether by reason OF this
clause in the act of 1908, above refer
red to, the board of supervisors has
authority, provided the right has been
obtained by an election or by the fact
that the tax was already being levied
when the code became operative. to
levy more than two mills for school
purposes. It is clear, of course, that in
! case as much as sixteen mills have
been levied for state and county pur-
poses other than school purposes. the
school levy could not exceed two mills
In other words the State, and County
tax can not be greater than sixteen
mills unless this amount is not suffi-
cient for school purposes in which
case, the total levy can be eighteen