The opinion
OSBORN, J.
(concurring specially). I concur in tfc® opinion of Mr. Justice HURST herein. But lest the scope of the majority opinion be considered too broad, I point out that the Legislature did not purport to repeal the 1937 act levying the tax, thereby creating a surplus of funds on hand, nor did the Legislature purport to make a finding of the existence of a surplus in said fund not needed for the purpose originally intended. In either event, a different question would be presented for determination. See State ex rel. Sathre v. Hopton, 66 N. D. 313 , 265 N. W. 395 ; State v. Board of Com’rs of Butler County, 77 Kan. 527 , 94 P. 1004 ; Whaley v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 154 , 61 S. W. 35 ; State ex rel. Edwards v. Osborne, 193 S. C. 158, 7 S. E. 2d 526 ; Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108 , 23 L. Ed. 822 ; State ex rel. Bell v. Cummings, 130 Tenn. 566 , 172 S. W. 290 , L. R. A. 1915D, 274; Fitzpatrick v. State Board of Examiners, 105 Mont. 234 , 70 P. 2d 285 ; Miller v. Henry, 62 Ore. 4 , 124 P. 197 .