tax to thi differenoebstweeathe rate of the bond&x end al.50.
-4. Do'tu shall he levied,oolleoted,ebrogat- ed; diminishedor iaorenEed,nad no bonds &all be insuedhereunderuntil such notion has been nuthorired b y l majorityof the votes onst nt na elestioaheld ia the distriotfor such purpoesc~, nt which none but prop- erty taxpayingqualifiedvoters of suoh districtsbll be entitledto vote."
The fomer lnw (Artiole2794, RevisedStatutes)was in sub- lrtaatielly ths *we laaguae'sxoeptthat the tax'oeilingia Sections1 and ? respeotively,wns&at 11.00 instendof #l.SO.
It mill be noted that the lnw gives the power of levyingthe tnx to the commissionerr' oourtor the rchooltrusteesrespeotivelyand thet'thevote of the people referredto in Bootion 4 merely nuthorisesthe levy, but Is not *he levy itrelfo
The &mmibsioa of'A psals"hbld.iaYorktonaIadependbntSohool Districtv. Mflerlmch, 12 6-W. P26) 130, opinionby Judge Speer,that P vote of the psople l uthoriaiagthe tnx 10vy ia questionwe not effsotive to imposen tax until the sohoplboard nofuallyordsrsd,fhelsvy of the tax. . ,.. Sea al80 Geffertv. Yorktowakrdependeat6ohoolDistriot,290 8.11. 1053, by the Cusm&ssioaof Appeals, wherafaJudge Spser held that where no valid lsvy orderwa# made by the sohoolbonrd, the fax couldnot bs en- foroed. It would be the duty of the assensor-oollsofor thereforeto neseas propertyia 0-a nohooldistriofrviaiooordsaoewith the order of the scamissioaers' sourtlmiag the tnx: nad in nay independentsohool distrista,for mhioh he ir requirsdto reader service,he shouldadhere to the'rnte'rbt for-thinthe levy by'the'boardof,trurtseaof the distriot. Siaoe'tb nssrisor-bolleotor of your wunty ha6 llreedy preparedhis tax rolla;Ve sssumethnt +e oommlssionerr~ sourt sad the boards of any inde- peadsatnshooldintriosiavolvadb+ made thrii aanucrl lwies for this venr and so.oertifledto the'nenrssor-oolleotor. If this be true, no idditioaaltu may bs lsvlrd. '.. ~n'oliver v.' Cermier, 39 Tax. 396, the rohool borrd lsviedn tax of one-halfof one peroeat. Thir bonrd waa removedfrom offioemd P new bonrd duringthe *NW yenr lwled the legalmuimm~~ of one psroent. The SupraseCourt, speskiagthroughJudge Welker, said: Hon. Vera V. Fogg, Page 4 (O-6652)
M think the first levy was legal,but that the second,bDerdof directorshad no such power es would enablethan to set rside the former levy, under which the tax ought to have bsea,oollected. The Legisleturevested.iathe sohooldirectorse discretionary power to levy suoh tex as in their judgmentthe public necessitiesrequired. This dis- .orstionlhea once exercisedin fixing the amount of tax to be levied for epy ~exhausted, end the second boerd,of'direotors could not rwise end ~setesidethe discretioawy ection,ofthe former board." .~ Accordingly,since the governmental 'agenciesin,questionere without power to levy en edditioasltax this year, it is not necessaryto ensweryour remainingquestions.
As previouslystated,we are esswning for the purposes of this opinionthat valid lwies have been mede by all govermnentelagenciesinvol-, ved prior to preparationof the tax rolls. Eb cell your etteationto the feat, howwer, that if e levy has not beenmade for this yenr, the question of P double lwy would not be involved. The commissioners' court for the common schooldistriots,or the schoolboerd in en independentschool dis- trict, couldin such cesemake an original'ibvy for the iaareesedrate euth- orired by statuteend a vote of the people.
In the cnse of Cedeaev. State, 165 5.X 367, errorrefused, Judge Fly stated:
"All propertyowned on,the first dsy