Our Supreme Court in 1895 stated the e&feat of the a- bove constitntiodal provision as follows:

Honorable Charles 5. MoMillan, Page 2

"Therefore, the attempted *creation' or *in- ourrhg* or a 'debt*. for any conceivable purpose, and in any conoelvable manner, without making the *provialonl, is contrary to the express prohibition or the oonstitutloa ad void; and it IS wholly im- material whether the oonslderatlon or *purpose* or the transaction be properly olassed as an item of orfl~aary or current expenses, or otherwise, and whether the 'debt' be evfdenaed by an ordinary verbal. or written contract, a note, or a bond." l&Wetllr. City Of W30, 89 Ter. Sg,, +X5 Sr.W. X32.

otiae fmud #at tEe obX%@ticm8 waxa aot wdebtaw aud It was upon thIsbaaim,that thair~afi~ty*as euatai.~~Q. It fs 8tatOdln tEa opinions

** * *but under no.oae of.the assiglDBent& doea the plainti$Z In error raise the qrtestion t&at the years la whleh the water was used by she City *3 Bonorable Charles S. bfoMlllan, Page 3

of Tyler the current expenses were greater than the current revenue. The making or a contrtct ror water for a number of years to be delivered in the future did not create a debt against the aity, but the liability of the city arose upon the use by it of the water during each year. * * * It is there- rore imaterial that the ourrent expenses for 1889 were greater than the current revenue or the City or Tyler, and we shall nat further discuss that phase of the question."

Whether an obligation creates a *debt* WI&IQ ths a- ‘bare Constlfutlodal pro~IaIon Is not eontrolled by a detemlna- tfon that it may ba properly olassitfed as *orQInar$ expense*~ for auah expenses may oonstltute a *debt? If It Is Iatonded that yeas+ or, If they shall be pa%d out or the revanues of futare .thay, together with the valid outstandfng warrants agalwt t&a fuud exceeds the moneys available plus the reasonably an$Ioipat- ed revennes for the year. Carron olted saprai Bramale J. .Btrength, aupra, was a ease oonoemed with *ordinary ~ens#@. .anQ the warrants were payable o-sit or the g&ersl -~~VMIUO mud. The oonrt ob8ervad:

'** * *It &teems us It easily aould be Qe- tar&mid at any tti whether the sum of &aIms reprewatlag urQla8ry ampeases of the eouaty a-, momted to'as mueh'ae~-It reasonabLy ueulQ bs ax- peoted the earreat rawaaues of the aountywoulQ .aarouat ts. When it was found they dIQ, It seems

to UE it might very well ba aald that sush on%- nary expqase8 or ths ooonty as were thereafter InourreQ were .+&In the prohibition of wutlom 9 ore Artlale X.1 or the Constftatlon,w

It Is oar opinion that warrants Issued by a aouaty ourrent expenses are void, where a0 provIsion la mado aa provided la Constitution, Artlale Il., Section I, at the tInm the obllga- tion Is Inourred~and it In intended that they shall be paid oat es revenues or rutuF0 yeara, or where such warrants when addad to ml.ld outstanding warrants againat the fund exaeed the avail- able balance and the reasonable and lawfully oontemplated or ex- paotqd revenaes for that year. What may be reasoaably and ladull] *4 Honorable Charles S. MaMlllan, Page 4

contemplated or expected revenues for the year does not neces- sarily depend-upon actual collections.

Inasmuah ae your request does not aet forth the facts oontrolling the warrant.6 you have in mind, we are unable to give you a categorioal auawer as to their validity.

Your8 very truly ATTORNEY@NEFUL OFTEXA8 , BY Aseirtent

hPPROV'5Q JUL 14, 1939 COMMllTEE