Cox v. Comm'rs Of Pitt County

• Decision Date: 26 February 1908
• Citation: 146 N.C. 584,60 S.E. 516
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: COX et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF PITT COUNTY.

60 S.E. 516

146 N.C. 584

COX et al.

v.COMMISSIONERS OF PITT COUNTY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 26, 1908.

1. Statutes, —Determination of Validity— Notice of Application for Act.

The question whether the 30 days' notice was given of the passage of the act of March 6, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 733, c 493), authorizing the issuance of bonds to aid in the establishment of a training school, as required by the direct provisions of Const, art. 2, § 12, relating to private acts, will not be determined by the court, since the question relates to the action of a co-ordinate branch of the state government, and the court will conclusively presume from the ratification of the act that the notice was given.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 44, Statutes, §§ 53, 382.]

2. Constitutional Law — Delegation of Legislative Powers — Elections — Registration.

Const, art. 6, §§ 2, 3, 4, provide that the Legislature may from time to time provide for the registration of voters, and that all elections by the people shall be by ballot, and that each voter is eligible to office. The suffrage amend-ment of 1900 to the Constitution fixed a new qualification for voters, but left the matter of registration to the Legislature as before. Held, that Laws 1907, p. 733, c. 493, providing for the issuance of county bonds on consent of the voters, and authorizing by section 4 (page 733) a new registration of voters, is not invalid under the Constitution, since the power to provide for the registration of voters is in the Legislature, and they may leave it to the local authorities. 3. Counties—"Public Purpose"—Corporate Capacity.

The issuance of county bonds to aid in the establishment of a training school for teachers in accordance with the provisions of chapter 820, p. 1165, Acts 1907, and carried out by Acts 1907, p. 733, c. 493, is for a "public purpose, " and not violative of the Constitution, as not within the scope and purpose of a municipal corporation.

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 5815, 5816; vol. 8, p. 7773.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; Lyon, Judge.

Suit by A. D. Cox and others against the commissioners of Pitt County. From an order denying an injunction, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action brought by the plaintiffs, as citizens and taxpayers of the county of Pitt, to enjoin the issue of certain bonds, not exceeding $50,000, which defendants are about to issue to aid in establishing a training school at or near the town of Greenville in said county, in pursuance of the act of the General Assembly ratified March 6, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 733, c. 493). An application was made to his honor, Judge Lyon, in the superior court to enjoin the issuing of the bonds. From his order refusing the injunction, plaintiffs appealed.

Jarvis & Blow and J. L. Fleming, for appellees.

BROWN, J. The objection to the validity of the bonds and the legality of the issue are fully set out in the complaint, and we deem it necessary to notice four only of the contentions urged by plaintiffs.

It is insisted: First That the bond act is unconstitutional and void, for the reason that said act is a private act, and that 30 days' notice was not given as required in section 12, art. 2, of the Constitution. It is immaterial whether the act be a public local law, as defined in State v. Chambers, 93 N. C. 601, and similar cases, or purely a private act, as contended by plaintiffs. The courts will not go behind the ratification of the act to ascertain whether notice has been given in accordance with section 12, art 2, of the Constitution of this state. While that section is binding upon the conscience of the General Assembly, and doubtless is intended to be observed by that body, the courts will not undertake to review the action in that respect of a co-ordinate department of the state government, and will conclusively presume from ratification that the notice has been given. Gatlin v. Tarboro, 78 N. C. 119; Broadnax v. Groom, 64 N. C. 244; Worth v. Railroad, 89 N. C. 291; Puitt v. Commissioners, 94 N. C. 709, 55 Am. Rep. 638; State v. Powell, 100 N. C. 525, 6 S. E. 424. Second. That said act is unconstitutional and void, because it was not passed in the manner required by section 14, art 2, of the Constitution, in that the yeas and nays were not recorded on the second and third readings, as required by said section. An inspection of the journals of both houses of the General Assembly show that this contention is without foundation. Commissioners v. Trust Co., 143 N. C. 110, 55 S. E. 442. Third. That the act violates article 6, §§ 2, 3, and 4, of the Constitution, in that it empowered defendant to order a new registration. This position is untenable. The suffrage amendment of 1900 fixed a new qualification for voters, but left the matter of their registration to the Legislature as before. When and how the registration of voters shall be bad is left to the wisdom of the Legislature. And that body may leave it to the local authorities, such as boards of county commissioners, to order a new registration, if such body deems it proper. Railroad v. Commissioners of Onslow, 116 N. C. 566, 21 S. E. 205; McCormac v. Commissioners, 90 N. C. 441; White v....