#### C. H. JULIAN v. W. L. WARD, H. S. RAGAN, L. E. ROCKETT, M. L. WOOD, and A. S. HINSHAW, Board of County Commissioners of Randolph County.

(Filed 19 March, 1930.)

Taxation. A a — In this case held: local statute requiring submission of bonds to voters does not apply to bonds for necessary school term.

Where the board of county commissioners of a county, acting as an administrative agency for the State, order, in accordance with statutory procedure, the issuance of bonds to provide funds for the purchase of sites for, and the erection of, schoolhouses necessary to carry out the constitutional mandate for a six months term of public school for children between the ages of six and twenty-one years, Const., Art. IX, it is not required that the question of the issuance of such bonds be submitted to the vote of the electorate, and a public-local act, forbidding the commissioners of the county to issue bonds without first submitting the matter to a vote of the people, does not apply to such bonds, but only to local matters.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Shaw, J.,*at January Term, 1930, of RANDOLPH.

Affirmed.

Tbis is an action for injunctive relief. Tbe court below made tbe following order, or judgment:

“Tbis cause coming on to be beard by bis Honor, Thomas J. Sbaw, Superior Court judge, bolding court in tbe Fifteenth Judicial District, in Chambers, at Troy, North Carolina, and it appearing to tbe court tbat, Hon. P. A. McElroy, Superior Court judge, on 8 January, 1930, issued an order restraining tbe defendants from issuing bonds by authority of a certain bond order mentioned and set out in tbe complaint filed in tbis cause; and, tbat in said order, tbe defendants are required to appear before tbe undersigned, at Troy, North Carolina, to show cause, if any they have, why said restraining order should not be made permanent; and, it further appearing to tbe court tbat, said bearing was, by consent of counsel for plaintiff and defendants, continued from 22 January, 1930, until 23 January, 1930.

*481“After reading tbe pleadings, including tbe complaint and answer, botb of wbieb are taken and considered as affidavits, and, after bearing tbe arguments of counsel for botb plaintiff and defendants, tbe court finds, as a fact, that, on 1 July, 1929, tbe defendants passed a bond order for tbe issuance of $100,000 of Randolph County bonds, tbe proceeds of said bond issue to be used for tbe purchase of school sites, and tbe erection of school buildings on said sites, said sites being located at Frank-linville, N. C., Cedar Falls, N. C., and Arcbdale, N. C., all of said towns being located in Randolph County, North Carolina.

“Tbe court further finds, as a fact that, said bond order was passed on its final passage, on 18 July, 1929, and that a notice thereof was duly published, as is by law provided, and that tbe same was accompanied by a financial statement of said county, which shows tbe assessed property valuation thereof to be $27,364,013, and tbe school debt of said county to be $324,225, and tbe percentage that said net school debt bears to tbe said assessed valuation to be .01184.

“Tbe court further finds, as a fact, that tbe issuance of tbe said bonds and tbe expenditure of tbe money to be derived from tbe sale thereof is a necessary expense; that it is necessary to issue said bonds, and to use tbe funds to be derived from tbe sale thereof, in order for tbe public schools of North Carolina to be maintained as is required by tbe Constitution of said State.

“Tbe court further finds, as a fact that, in tbe issuance of said .bonds, the above named defendants are acting as administrative agencies of tbe State, and are employed by tbe General Assembly to discharge tbe duties, imposed upon them by tbe Constitution, to provide a State system of public schools, according to tbe provisions of said Constitution; that since they are-acting as such State agencies, it is not necessary for the question of tbe issuance of said bonds to be submitted to a vote of tbe-qualified voter's of tbe county of Randolph.

“It is, therefore, in accordance with tbe above named findings, ordered and adjudged that tbe restraining order heretofore issued by bis Honor, P. A. McElroy, be and tbe same is hereby dissolved.”

Tbe plaintiff excepted and assigned error to tbe above order, or judgment, and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*Moser & Burns for plaintiff.*

*A. I. Ferree and G. N. Gox for defendants.*

OlaeksoN, J.

Tbe question involved: Does a public-local statute, forbidding “tbe board of county commissioners for tbe county of Randolph” to issue bonds without first submitting tbe matter to a vote of tbe people of said county, prevent said commissioners, acting as an ad*482ministrative agency of tbe State, from issuing bonds for tbe purpose of purchasing land, building tbe -necessary scboolbouses and operating tbe schools in said county as required by tbe Constitution without submitting tbe matter to a vote of tbe people ? We think not. Tbe board of commissioners for tbe county of Randolph, acting' as an administrative agency of tbe State, can issue tbe bonds without a vote of tbe people as tbe Public-Local Statute applies only to local matters.

Under Article IX, “Education,” in tbe Constitution of North Carolina, we find tbe following sections:

> - “Section 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and tbe happiness of mankind, schools and tbe means of education shall forever be encouraged.

> Sec. 2. Tbe General Assembly, a.t its first session under this Constitution, shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of public schools, wherein tuition shall be free of charge to all tbe children of tbe State between tbe ages of six and twenty-one years. And tbe children of tbe white race and tbe children of tbe colored race shall be taught in separate public schools; but there shall be no discrimination in favor of, or to tbe prejudice of, either race.

> Sec. 3. Each county of tbe State shall be divided into a convenient, number of districts, in which one or more public schools shall be maintained at least six months in every year, and if the commissioners of any county shall fail to comply with the aforesaid requirements of this section, they shall be liable to indictment.”

Under these and other pertinent sections of the Constitution, it has been held in this jurisdiction that these provisions are mandatory. It is the duty of the State to provide a general and uniform State system of public schools of at least six months in every year wherein tuition shall be free of charge to all the children of the State between the ages of six and twenty-one. It is a necessary expense and a vote of the people is not required to make effective these and other constitutional provisions in relation to the public school system of the State. Under the mandatory provision in relation to the public school system of the State, the financing of the public school system of the State is in the discretion of the General Assembly by appropriate legislation either by State appropriation or through the county acting as an administrative agency of the State. *Lacy v. Bank,*183 N. C., 373; *Lovelace v. Pratt,*187 N. C., 686; *Frazier v. Commissioners,*194 N. C., 49; *Hall v. Commissioners of Duplin,*194 N. C., 768.

In the present action, in reference to Randolph County, the order, or judgment, in the court below, recites: “The court further finds, as a fact that, in the issuance of said bonds the above named defendants are acting as administrative agencies of the State, and are employed by the *483General Assembly to discharge the duties, imposed upon them by the Constitution, to provide a State system of public schools, according to the provisions of said Constitution.”

We think that this Public-Local Act must be construed as subordinate to the provisions. of the Constitution, in reference to the public school system. See *Hartsfield v. Craven County,*194 N. C., 358; *Owens v. Wake County,*195 N. C., 132.

In *Hall v. Commissioners of Duplin County,*195 N. C., at p. 369, is the following: “The decisions of this Court are to the effect that bonds and notes to be issued for erecting and equipping sehoolhouses and purchasing lands necessary for school purposes without submitting the question to popular vote 'where such sehoolhouses are required for the establishment or maintenance of the State system of public schools in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.’ The power is not given the county to issue bonds for the erection and purchase of sehoolhouses without a popular vote, except where such sehoolhouses and necessary land therefor are required for the establishment and maintenance of a six months school term as provided by the Constitution. *Lovelace v. Pratt,*187 N. C., 686; *Frazier v. Commissioners,*194 N. C., 49; *Owens v. Wake County, ante,*132. The purpose for which the bonds are issued must be stated and set forth in the bond resolution itself.”

It appears from the record and order or judgment in the court below that the law in the above particulars has been substantially complied with. The judgment below is

Affirmed.