euch a ci$y for,echoolpurposes is not limitedby Article 8, Sec- tion 9, but by Article 7, Section 3 of the Oonetitutlon.We qiz0t.e from the opinionof Chief JuatiaePhIllipsi State Board of Education,page 7 (O-4490)
"The Conetitution(Section10 of Article 11) haa empoweredthe~Leglelature to oonetltuteanytowior olty an independentschooldletrlot. The Leglelatqra,threfom, had the power to cay ae it hae done in Artlole 2871, that a olty or town takingover controlof lte pub110 sohoolae&allocmntl- tute auoh a dietrlat. There may thue be oonferredupon a olty a dual character,and with such oharaoter,dual powera. There could have been no purpoae in authoriziug the oreatlon of t- and cities ae independenteohooldlat,rlote - a reoog- nized separateclass of municipaloorporatlon~ with individual powers,unless in that oapacitythey were to have the power6 of such districts.
"The city of Rockdalehad lawfullyacquiredthis dual aharaoter. It had powers strictlya8 a munlclpality,to be ,exercisedfor strictlymunicipalpurposee;and it had ita powereas 8 duly constitutedindependenteohooldistrict. The two are not to be confueed."
In W. L & T. R. R. Co. of Texas v. City of Whitesboro,(196) 287 S. W. 904, the Texas Ccamnieeion of Appeals -In decleredthat the tax rate for citieswhich have seamed controlof their schools le ooutrolledby Artiole 7, Section 3 of the Constltutiopboth'beforeand after such city may have extendedits llmitefor echo01 purposesonly. Bishop,J., at page 906, saldr
"The municipalcorporationand the independentschool districtare distinct,thou& they are both under the control of the same officers."
It may appear that City of Athene v. Moody, (1926) 115 Tex. 247, 280 S.W. 514, by the Commieelonof Appeals, is In oonfliotwlth the doctrineannouncedby the preoedingcaaee whioh recognizethe dual nature of citieswhich have aaeumedcontrolof their echoola. A care- fulanaly~ie of thle ease, however, indicatesthat it does not disavow .thedual nature of citieshaving controlof their eohoole,but merely reoognizeethe $1.50 limitationon the tax rata of oitleehaving a populationof leea than 5,000 for both school and municipalpurposes, pursuantto the express languageof the statutethere under cozglderatlon (Section3 of Chapter 9, Acts 1921, 37tb Legislature,which ls'now codifiedas Article 1027,R.C.S., 1925). Again we find the courts deckring that those eligibleto vote on an Increasein taxes for ischoolpurposesln oltleawhich have aeeumed controlof their schools is to be gOVem3d by Article7, Section 3 of the Constitutionrelatingto eohooldietriotsrather than to the provielone relatingta cities. State Board of Education,page 8 (O-4490)
1~ Cltg of Fort Worth v. Zane-Oett.1(1925),278 S.W. 183, the Texae Ccmmleelonof Appeala;heldthat an elebtlonto inarease the tax rate for eohool purpoeeein Port Worth (whlohhas aeeumed oontrolof lta eohoole)muet be by the "qualifiedpropsrtytax paying voterr"as providedby Artlole 7, Seotlon 3 of the Cor<utlon, instead of by the "qualifiedvotera" se provided by Fort Worth% home-rule ,ohartar.Said Nichols,J., at page 184;
"The souroe of the legislativepower to create,or define an independenttlchool distrlotis to be found in Section 3, Article 7 of the Constitution.Such a district is a municipalcorporation,sui generls. City of Rockdale v. Cureton,AttorneyGeneral, 111 Tex. 136, 229 S.W. 852. The territoryof a city and the territoryof a districtmay be exactlycoincident,and for the distinctivepurpomea,separate governmentimay be providedto operateseparately,but harmoni- oualy,within the common orbit. Simmonsv. Lightfoot,Attorney General,105 Tex. 212, 215, 146 S.W. 871;