Honorable Maurice P. Bullock
county Attorney
Peoos county
F't.Stocktcn, Texts
Ik2.rSir: Opinion Number O-2667
Re: Validity of road bonds voted
upon the condition that they
he taken ever and assmcd
for paymnt by the State,
:Vehave your letter in which cur opinion is requested on
the folIow5r.gstate of facts:
"A oonsidernSle portion of the State highwys
in Peoos county ore what are generally knom as un-
inprwmd dirt roads, end the citizens of Feces County
are desirous of having these State highways Improved
and herd surfaced. A plan h&s been suggested to the
x?mnty Comnissj~oners’ Court whereby an election mey
be called for the purpose,of voting bor.dsto finance
this proposed highway oCnShW&iCn and imprOVement
without the county actually in the long run being
burdezed x%th the necessity of levying tares for the
pa>mnt of such bonds. It has been suggested that
the orr?ersar.dnotices for such election night bo so
drwm BS to condition their issuance upon the State
Iiiglx%yDepartment's using the proceeds thereof for
construction, improvement, etc. of roads in Pecos
county 8s State highways, and conditioned further upon
Eouse El1 688 of the 46th Legislature, Regulm Session,
1X5?, being hereafter amendod in such mnnner as to
enthorize the fu13 aswmption by the Strrteof Texas
of the psynx%t of all bonds thus issued."
Your q~uestionis:
"Kill a bond j~ssuethus voted and thus limi.ted
be valid, and would bonds thus voted hut issued in
violation of said conditions he null and void?"
Although your staterrontof facts conton;p!atesthe prepere-
tion and passcge of orders and the issuance of not!ce for an election
to vote road bonds conditionally, it does not disclose in ooncrete
form the proposition proposed to be submitted to the oaalified voters
-
Honorable Maurice R. Bullook, page 2 O-2667
for their'action thereon. Under the law there is no inherent right
in the people to hold eleotions. Sea ~~llliamsvs. Glove=, 259 S. W.
957. Eleotions may be held only where authorized by law. In tho
voting of road bonds we must look to Article 752a, et seq., Title 22,
Chaper 3, of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, for the specific au-
thorityto vote and issue them. It will be noted that Article 762b
provides that the election order and notioe of election shall state,
first, the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued: seoond, the
amount thereof; third, the rate of interest; and, fourth, that ad
valorem taxes are to be levied annually on all taxable property within
said issuing subdivision to pay the annual interest and provide a
sinking fund to pay the bonds at maturity. Subsequent articles detail
the steps that must be taken preparatory to voting at this election,
and, likewise, prescribes the manner of holding same. Other articles
under this title prescribe the maturity dates, interest rate and de-
nQnination to which bonds issued thereunder must conform.
We call your attention to the following language appear-
ing in Artiole 762b:
"Upon the petition of fifty resident property
taxpaying voters of any county, the Conrmissionersl
Court of suoh county. at any regular or special session
thereof, shall order an election to be held in suah
oountv to determine whether or not the bonda of suah
county shall be issued --
for the purpose --
of the oonstruo-
& operation of macadamieed , $ravei;ed
-ore roads and turnpikes, ---
-- or% aid thereof * * *
In our opinion the underscored language in the above ar-
ticle establishes what may be considered the statutory purpose for
whioh road bonds may be issued'and that the use of such language tends
to exclude other purposes, even though related. In other words, the
underscored portion of the above quoted statute appears to be the pur-
pose that the Legislature intended having submitted to the property
taxpaying voters of any county whenever the proposition for the issuance
of road bonds is subnitted to them for their action thereon.
For purposes of this opinion we must assume that it is
your intention to subnit a proposition to the voters of your county
containing a purpose phrased at set forth in Article 752b, hereinabove
underscored, and in addition thereto it is planned that the orders and
notices, as well as the petition, shall provide that in the event the
bonds are authorized the proceeds thereof shall be used only for the
oonetruation and improvement of State highways within the county and
then only in the event that House Bill 666, Forty-sixth Legislature,
Regular Session, 1939, is so amended as to make such bonds 10%
eligible for partiaipation in the State gasoline tax fund allocated to
the Board of County and District Road Indebtedness. Re feel it
necessary to restate your proposition in order that our answer shall
- -
Honorable Maurice R. Bullock, page~3 O-2667
be deer. This question differs from the problem presented in the
Moore VS. Coffman case, 200 S. A. 374, wherein the general rule is
stated that the purposes for issuing bonds stated in the petition,
order and notice of the election determines for what purposes the
bonds were,issued, and that the voters have no right to rely upon any
other state@nt or order for ascertaining the purposes for which
bonds are to be issued. In the instant matter theconditions are
made a part of the petition, ordar and,notice,.,and,therefore, become
without question a part of the election proceedings, and ,inview of
the language used by the Supreme Court in.the above,.mentionedMoore vs.
?Xffman ease, we think,that a c;on