The holders, therefore, of these remaining courthouse and jail bonds have the positive pledge of Drew county that this 2 mill levy will never be reduced and shall continue from year to year until all bonds, with interest and costs, have been paid in full. Under our holding in Turnbow v. Talkington, 191 Ark. 492, 86 S.W.2d 940, in which the initial levy was 1 1/2 mills for the cost of a county courthouse and jail, the levying court of Drew county in the instant case had the containing discretion and authority to levy a higher rate than the initial 2 mill levy, supra, if required to pay the cost of the courthouse and jail so long as the rate did not exceed 5 mills. "Until this limitation has been reached a discretion abides in the levying court."

Amendment No. 17, as amended by Amendment No. 25, does not require that the ballot set forth the rate of tax to be levied. Dealing with this identical question in the case of Turnbow v. Talkington, 191 Ark. 492, 86 S.W.2d 940, we said: "It was not contemplated that the electors should vote for the levy of any particular rate of taxation." The provisions of Act No. 294 of 1929, requiring that the amount of the proposed bond issue (for refunding) and the amount of the tax to be levied therefor be shown on the ballot, do not apply to an election called to determine whether the proposed courthouse, jail or hospital shall be built. It does not vitiate the election for the rate of tax that it is proposed to levy to be stated on the ballot; and we have said that when this is done, a levy exceeding the amount stated on the ballot may not be made. Cisco v. Caudle, County Judge, 210 Ark. 1006, 198 S.W.2d 992.