Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-31

Opinion No. 31 Appropriations-Univel'sity of l\Iontana-Schools. HELD: It is doubtful if the legisla' ture has the power to divert ony part of the millage tax for the support of an instHution which is not a componcnt part of the Uuiversity of Montana. Januory 21, 1933. Chancellor Bronnon has requested us to advise as to the propriety of appro' priating money from the millage tax fund for the support of the institution known as the "Branch Regional Summer School at Miles City." 'l'he LegislatiYe Assembly has not es· tablished this school or made it a unit of the University of Montana by any legislative enactment. So far as we know it is not connected in any way with the Agricultural Experiment Sta· tion or the Agricultural Extension Sen· ice. It is true, however, that the legis· lature at the sessions of 1929 and 1931 recognized it to the extent of making small appropriations for its support. In 1929 the Legislath'e Assembly llassed Referendum Measure Ko. 34 which authorizes that body to make an additional levy of not to exceed three mills for a period of ten years, be· ginning with the year 1!)31, on real and personal property, for the support, main· tenance and improvement of the insti· tutions now comprised in the Greater University of Montana, together with the Agricultural Experiment Station and the Agricultural Extension Servo ice, and to appropriate so much of the moneys derived therefrom for each yeor during said period os may be necessary for said purposes. This mensure was adopted by the people ot the general election held on Noyember 4, 1930. A similar measure was initiated in 1920 and adopted by the people at the general election held in Noyember of that year. It, in effect, empowered the Legislath'e Assembly to make an in· creased len- of one and one·half mills, over a period of ten yearS, beginning wlith the yenr 1921, for state purposes, and to appropriate the money derived therefrom for the support, maintenance and improvement of the then four units of the Unh'ersity of Montana. The as· semhly, in making appropriations for the fiscal year beginning ,Tuly 1, 1925, and ending June 30, 1926, followed the direction of the people contained in the measure. In December, 1925, the state board of examiners ordered the state audHor to draw warrants on the fund so created in payment of claims against the Agricultural ]~xperiment Station and the Agricultural Extension Service. In State ex reI. Jones v. Erick· son. 75 l\10nt. 42f). the court held tha t the" board was without authority so to do for the reason that the agricultural experiment station and the ogricultuml extension sel"Yice were not parts of the agriculutral college or component parts of the Unh'ersity of ]\fontana. 'rhc court, though referring to the matter, did not decide that the direction above men· tioned was or was not binding on the successive legislative assemblies. We cite the ease, howe"er, not because it is binding on the legislature, but be· ca use it may serve as a guide to legis· lative action. Generally speaking, statutes enacted under the initiative or refel'cll{lum, like other statutes, are subject to amend· ment or repeal by the legislature. (State ex rei Goodman v. Stewart, 57 Mont. 144; 5f) C .. T. 719, 720). E,'en so, it is doubtful thn t thc legis· lature has power to dh'crt allY part of the fund to purposes other than those specified. If it has the power to dh'ert a part, it may be argued with force that H has power to divert the whole of the fund. In conclusion. we feel the legislature is morally, if not legally, obligated to respect the wishes of the people as ex· pressed at the polls, and s>o ad"ise.