Graham County v. . Terry

Adams, J. The appellant contends that the act submitting to the qualified voters of the county the question of issuing the bonds is ineffective because it was not passed in compliance with Art. II, sec. 14, of the Constitution. The section is as follows: “No law shall be passed to raise money on the credit of the State, or to pledge the faith of the State, directly or indirectly, for the payment of any debt, or to impose *24 any tax upon tbe people of the State, or allow the counties, cities or towns to do so, unless the bill for the purpose shall have been read three several times in each house of the General Assembly and passed three several readings, which readings shall have been on three different days, and agreed to by each .house respectively, and unless the yeas and nays on the second and third readings of the bill shall have been entered on the journal.” The act of 4 March, purporting to validate the proceedings of the board of commissioners, was passed in accordance with the constitutional requirements and was not amended, changed, or modified as to its terms in any respect by the act which five days afterwards referred the question of issuing the bonds to the voters of the county. In Glenn v. Wray, 126 N. C., 730, cited by the appellant, the act authorizing a subscription for stock in a railroad company was amended on the third reading, and the question was whether the amendment was material. In the present case the object of the later act was to ascertain the will of the taxpayers — to give them an opportunity by means of a referendum to share in the legislative power which is reserved to the people (25 R. C. L., 804, sec. 53), and not to raise money on the credit of the county, or to pledge the faith of the county, or to impose a tax. The plaintiff’s second position is this: that upon ratification of the act of 4 March a binding contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendants which no subsequent legislation could impair; that the parties are protected by the constitutional provisions that no person ought to be deprived of his property but by the law of the land, and that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Constitution of United States, Art. I, sec. 10; Constitution of North Carolina, Art. I, sec. 17. The evil against which the Federal Constitution intended to guard was the effect incident to the operation of the forbidden law. Barnes v. Barnes, 53 N. C., 366. The resolution adopted by the board of commissioners contains this clause: “It is further agreed that this board will cooperate with the said Eerebee & Company (bidders for the bonds) with the view of having any necessary legislation enacted and the passage of any resolutions that may be necessary, with the view that said bonds be approved by their attorneys at the earliest possible date.” It is evident, we think, that the resolution contemplated delivery of the bonds and completion of the contract only after the usual examination and approval of the law authorizing the issuance of the bonds. . It affirmatively appears that the bonds have hot been approved, presumably because the question whether they shall be issued has not been submitted to the voters of the county. The act requiring the bonds to be voted on was ratified on the fifth day after the ratification of the act purporting *25 to validate tbe resolution of tbe commissioners. Tbe same Legislature, of course, enacted both statutes. Whether tbe later act was pending when tbe earlier was ratified tbe record does not disclose; but the two áre so nearly related as to tbe date of ratification, tbe subject-matter being tbe same, that we cannot bold as a matter of law that tbe Act of 9 March has tbe effect of impairing tbe obligation of a contract in disregard of tbe constitutional inhibition. It seems to have been tbe purpose of tbe General Assembly not to treat as final tbe Act of 4 March, but to retain control of tbe subject for additional or supplemental legislation. That this was within tbe legislative power is not open to question. Cooley’s Const. Lim., 152. We are not inadvertent to tbe principle that tbe law of contract enters into tbe contract itself (Hill v. Brown, 144 N. C., 117), or that vested rights may not be destroyed as a rule by tbe retroactive operation of a statute (Lowe v. Harris, 112 N. C., 472); but we think that neither of these principles is controlling in tbe case before us. Tbe two statutes are in pari materia and must be construed together. Moreover, tbe question presented will be academic if an election is held and tbe bonds are approved. Judgment affirmed.