restrictive than if otherwise construed. For it might happen that, during the years 1918, 1919, and 1920, no levy for a particular purpose had been made at all, although authorized and limited by statute. Accordingly, the effect of the statute might be to abrogate the right to make any levy by reason of the failure during such years to make any levy. A legislative restriction upon a power or authority theretofore granted by legislation should not be imposed nor increased unless the legislative language and intent is clear so to do. Tax legislation enacted in 1919 changed methods of determining assessed value. Chap. 220, Laws 1919. These methods greatly enhanced assessed values. They operated to remove or far extend limitations (in amounts of moneys) upon levies as theretofore inade by political subdivisions of the state. Accordingly, in a restrictive way, in 1919, a statute was also enacted (chap. 214, Laws 1919) which provides that the total amount of the taxes levied for any purpose for the years 1919 and 1920, etc., shall not exceed by more than 10 per cent. the amount that would be produced by the levy of the maximum rate upon the assessed valuation of 1918. Thereafter, the special session of the Legislative Assenmbly in 1919, re-enacted said chap. 214, and imposed, in addition, a penalty for its violation, and further enacted another statute reducing the levy and amount of state taxes 25 per cent. These acts serve to throw some light, though scant, upon legislative intent, concerning the levy and amount of taxes. The language of the statute speaks in terms of totals: "The total amount of taxes;" "the total combined levies." If a comma should be inserted after the word "taxes," the statute would read: "The total amount of taxes, levied for any purpose." Thus, the phrase, "levied for any purpose," considered in connection with the other language of the statute, might equally as well refer to an inclusive purpose or purposes, as to a particular purpose. We are of the opinion that no legislative intent can be deduced, either from the language used or, upon principles of construction, to abrogate the right to make a particular levy otherwise authorized by statute, as might occur under plaintiff's construction.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the language of the statute, considered in its entirety, and in connection with existing cognate legislation, was intended to apply to the total amount of the budget. In other words, the statute intends to mean as if it read: "The total amount of taxes, levied for all purposes of the political subdivision shall not exceed an amount equal to one third of the total combined levies," etc. No
