inconeietent with their proper uee* * * Q The power of the Legislatureto regulatestreetshas been classifiedaa part of the policepower, * * * Lower ColoradoRiver Authority- Page 3 (o-3301)
"(3679) Strictlyspeaking,a municipalityhaa no original or inherentpower tc controland regulateita atreels."
In 44 0. J. 976,par. 3770,the followiag hqfuage le ntlsebt "(a) The etate"spower to grant the we of streetsbeing euprenewithin oonetltutlonallimitations,It may exercise such power against the muuiclpality'sdissent."
Section 10 of the ordinancein questionprovidesthat if the Lower ColoradoRiver Authorityfalls to pay the rental,it shall,upon conviotion,be fined in any sum not to exceed$100.00for each day, and providesthat each day &la11 be deemed a separateoffense. In our opinion, the Cfty of Llano, a municipalcorporation,organizedunder the authority of the LegPslature,cannot inflictand collecta fine from the State of Texas for the use of the streeteand alleys in said city which are owned and controlledby f&e State of Texas.
In City of Arlingtonv. Lfllard,294 S. W. 829, the Supreme Court, in answeringcertifiedquestions,held an ordinancepassedby the City of Arlingtonwaa void, which prohibitedthe operationfor hire of motor busses over and upon certainstreetsin said city, and used the followinglanguages
"(3) We think the power sought tc be exercisedhere is inconeistentwftbgeneralstatutes,and has not been delegated to the cities,at least that ft is very doubtful;and the rule as stated in 28 6. J. ps 265 Is thats
"Where a particularpower fs claimedfor a municipal corporation* * + any fair, reasonabledoubt as to the existence and poaeessionof the power w¶.l.P be resolvedagainstthe corpo- ration,and the power denied to it,' Brenbam v. BrenbemWater Co. 67 Tex, 542." In City of Fort Worth v. LilPard,294 S. W. 831, the Supreme Court, in holding invalfdan ordinancepassedby the City of Fort Worth, which prohibitedthe use of the streetsby those carryingpassengersfor hire, used this language:
"In en opiniondeliveredtoday in the case of City of Arlingtonv. Lillard,294 9. W. 829, this court held that the city is withoutpower tc prohibitthe uee of its streets to those carryingpassengersfor hire."
in WesltV* City of Waco, 294 S. W. 832, the SupremeCourt, in up- holdingan ordinanceof the City of Waco, which prohibitedthe uee of the public square for privatebusiness,used this language: ~'.. .. Iower CoPoraaoRlwr Auticzit~D Page k
"(I) The hfgbmyn of the Stat+a# hohUng streets of eltfea,belong to %e State, aredthe State hae'33111 contml and authorftyover then. l?neyOare the prcgerty Of &na for the IaBeoafthe state, which, tIWou& itm Legfslature, has abec??oPte eowb~~'l QV%P wame, which tmm.mP it may or may not9 frcm time to t,Imedelegateto the local authorftfes.U"
In our opinfom,tkm City of Llano doea not haye the power tc requirethe Lower Cclcradclaivo~Aa+JnoPtyyuhich is a governmentsal agency,to pay rentalfor Uhe ur3eOr t&e etreets frasaid efty.
m-m-da
APPROVBDAPR 18, 15~41
/a/ Grover Sellers
FIBT ASSISTART ATl!CIWYGElW.RAL