PROTEST OF CHICAGO R. I. & P. RY. CO.

PROTEST OF CHICAGO R. I. & P. RY. CO.
1932 OK 810
16 P.2d 855
160 Okla. 226
Case Number: 23525
Decided: 12/06/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PROTEST OF CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Schools and School Districts -- Taxation -- Appropriation for "Auxiliary Agencies and Co-ordinate Activities" Held Sufficiently Itemized.
An appropriation of $ 1,200 for a school district under the heading of "Auxiliary Agencies and Co-ordinate Activities" as a part of appropriations aggregating $ 168,646 for current expense purposes of the school district, is not so disproportionate to the aggregate amount appropriated as to require further itemization.
2. Same--Appropriation Properly Made to Include Amount to Be Used to Pay Salary of Teacher of Vocational Education.
An appropriation may be made under the heading of "Auxiliary Agencies and Co-ordinate Activities" to include an amount that is intended to be used for the payment of the salary of a teacher of vocational education, under the provisions of law authorizing appropriations for the conduct of schools.
3. Same--Appropriation Legally Made for Salary of Teacher Though Partly Engaged in Teaching Those not Entitled to Instruction Under School Laws.
An appropriation of an amount for the payment of the salary of a necessary school teacher may be made, even though a part of the duties assigned to the teacher are to teach those not entitled to instruction under the school laws of the state.
4. Same--Constitutional Provision Authorizing Increased Tax Levy for Erecting Public Building Upon Vote of People Held Self-Executing.
Section 10, art. 10, of the Constitution of Oklahoma is a grant of power to the people of the municipalities of this state named therein, complete in itself, and needing no legislation to put it in force.

Appeal from Court of Tax Review; Porter Newman, Asa E. Walden, and O. C. Wybrant, Judges.

In the matter of the protest of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company against illegal and excessive tax levies for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1931, and ending June 30, 1932, made by said excise board of Carter County. From judgment of Court of Tax Review, protestant appeals. Affirmed.

W. R. Bleakmore, W. L. Farmer, John Barry, and Robert E. Lee, for protestant.
Marvin Shilling, Co. Atty., and Stephen A. George, for protestee.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Tax Review denying two items of a tax protest filed in that court.

¶2 The protestant contends that there is no authority of law for making the appropriation of $ 1,200 which appears to have been made under the heading of "Auxiliary Agencies and Co-ordinate Activities," and that, if there is such authority, the appropriation was improper in that it was not itemized, as required by the provisions of section 12677, O. S. 1931 (section 9698, C. O. S. 1921). In support thereof it is contended that there is no statute authorizing the making of the appropriation. The appropriation is authorized by the general statutes authorizing appropriations for the conduct of schools.

¶3 The amount of the appropriation was $ 1,200, and that amount, with the other items, aggregated $ 168,646 for current expense purposes of the school district. We cannot say that the amount of the protested appropriation is so disproportionate to the aggregate amount appropriated for current expense purposes as to require further itemization.

¶4 Some question is presented as to the use to which the amount appropriated is to be put. It appears from the briefs and record that it is to be used for the payment of the salary of a teacher of vocational education as a part of the program adopted by the state board of vocational education. As such, the appropriation was authorized.

¶5 The question as to whether or not that teacher is authorized to teach persons over the age of 21 years is not presented by the record. An appropriation for the salary of a teacher may be made even though a part of the duties of the teacher are to teach those not entitled to instruction under the school laws of this state.

¶6 The qualified voters of school district No. 27, at an election held for that purpose, authorized a levy of 4.69 mills for a building fund, pursuant to the provisions of section 10, art. 10, of the Constitution, and the excise board made an appropriation and fixed the rate of levy in accordance therewith. That levy was protested on the grounds that section 10, supra, is not self-executing and that it has not been vitalized by the Legislature.

¶7 No authority is cited in support of the contention that the section is not self-executing, but it is contended that the construction of section 9, art. 10, of the Constitution, in Tilley v. Overton, 29 Okla. 292, 116 P. 945, and McCreary v. Lee, 45 Okla. 201, 145 P. 777, should be applied to section 10, supra. We think that the provisions of section 10, supra, are more like the provisions of section 27, art. 10, of the Constitution, than they are like the provisions of section 9, supra. Section 27, supra, was held to be a grant of power to the people of the municipalities of this state named therein, complete in itself, and needing no legislation to put it in force in Williams v. City of Norman, 85 Okla. 230, 205 P. 144. See, also State ex rel. Edwards v. Millar, Mayor, 21 Okla. 448, 96 P. 747; Town of Afton v. Gill, 57 Okla. 36, 156 P. 658, and Dunagan v. Town of Red Rock, 58 Okla. 218, 158 P. 1170. We see no reason why that rule should not be applied to section 10, supra, and we, therefore, hold that section 10, supra, is a grant of power to the people of the municipalities of this state named therein, complete in itself, and needing no legislation to put it in force.