Court Opinion

ID: 9811172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:12:00.069884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:37.669591
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
dissenting in part and concurring in part: In one aspect I cannot agree with the main opinion:
(1) I think the levy of $25.00 included in the budget for the fiscal year ending 30 June, 1938, for the Charlotte “airport” was a necessary expense and it was not such an expense that should be submitted to a vote of the people, under Const, of N. O., Art. VII, sec. 7.
(2) I think the governing body of the city of Charlotte has a right to pass an ordinance transferring $5,000, on hand unappropriated and collected as a “contingent fund,” for the “airport.” In the concurring opinion of Devin, J., is the following: “I do not understand that on this record the decision goes- to the extent of holding that the city is without power, by appropriate resolution, to provide for the expenditure of money in its treasury applicable to general municipal expenses when this is done for the purpose of protecting and making essential repairs to property owned by the city and used for a public purpose.” If this is the correct interpretation, on this aspect I concur.
The judgment of the court below is as follows: “This cause coming on to be heard before the undersigned judge at the November, 1937, Term of the Superior Court, and a stipulation having been entered into waiving a jury trial and agreeing that the court finds the facts in said cause, and the court having found the following facts: ‘(1) That the plaintiff is a citizen, resident, and property owner and taxpayer of the city of Charlotte, North Carolina. (2) That the defendants constitute the governing body of the city of Charlotte, a municipal corporation. (3) That the city of Charlotte is a city of substantial and fastly expanding government; with a population of approximately 95,000, and total taxable values of approximately $110,000,000, and is strategically located for further immediate growth and development, and has been recognized by the Federal Government as a strategic airport center between New *72York and Miami, Florida, being three and three-fourths hours from New York and six and one-half hours from Miami by way of airline. (4) That in the budget for the fiscal year beginning 1 July, 1937, and ending 30 June, 1938, which budget was duly adopted by the governing authorities of the city of Charlotte, as by law provided, an appropriation of $25.00 was made to be expended towards the maintenance, operation, and upkeep of the said airport. That the $5,000 referred to in the pleadings transferred from the contingent fund to the airport fund was money derived from taxation and was not an unappropriated surplus fund derived from other sources. (5) That on 3 November, 1936, the voters of the city of Charlotte voted upon and approved an ordinance authorizing the issuing of bonds by the city of Charlotte in the sum of $50,000 for the purpose of purchasing a tract of land for a municipal airport, which ordinance further provided that a tax sufficient to pay the principal and interest 'on the said bonds should be annually levied on all taxable property in the city of Charlotte; that of the entire voting population of approximately . thousand qualified voters, only 119 votes were cast against said bonds. (6) That pursuant to the approval of said bonds by the voters of the city, the governing body of said city issued said bonds and purchased with the proceeds thereof approximately 450 acres of land outside the limits of, but near the city of Charlotte. (7) That thereafter the Federal Government spent approximately $325,-000 for leveling and grading the said land, building three runways, and equipping said field with an office or administration building, one hangar, and a field lighting system, completing the same about 1 June, 1937, and turned the same over to the city of Charlotte for maintenance and operation. (8) That the Highway Commission of the State of North Carolina constructed a highway approximately.miles long from State Highway .to said airfield, and built a concrete bridge over the main line of the Southern Railway over which said highway crossed, all for the total cost of approximately $35,000. (9) That pursuant to the authorities vested in the said city of Charlotte by the 1937 session of the North Carolina General Assembly, the governing body of the said city of Charlotte appointed an “airport commission,” composed of three citizens who serve without pay, to operate said airport for the city, in which said legislative act the treasurer of the city of Charlotte is designated as treasurer of the airport funds, and all moneys collected from the operation of said airport are disbursed by said treasurer upon warrants signed by him, the mayor of the city of Charlotte, the city manager of the city of Charlotte, and the chairman of said airport commission, and that said airport commission is authorized to employ a manager, assistant manager, and such other employees as they deem necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of said airport. *73(10) Since its appointment in July, 1937, the said airport commission has been operating said airport in this manner for the benefit of the city of Charlotte, in which said city the title to the property and improvements thereon is vested. (11) That the present and prospective income from the operation of said airport is grossly inadequate to meet the cost of operating and properly maintaining said airport, and that the only funds available for the operation and maintenance of said airport are such funds as the »commission is able to derive from its operation, which funds are not sufficient to employ the necessary personnel for the proper operation of said airport, to say nothing of its maintenance and upkeep. (12) That the Department of Air Commerce of the Federal Government in conjunction with the United States Post Office Department has designated the said airport as an air mail distributing center, and the Eastern Air Lines, Inc., are now operating six planes daily through said airport, giving air mail, passenger and express service; that in order to keep this service in North Carolina and the city of Charlotte, it is necessary, under the requirements of the Federal Government, to keep the said airport and its facilities up to a certain standard of equipment and condition at all times, which requirements necessitate the expenditure of more money than is derived from the operation of said airport. (13) That unless the said city of Charlotte is permitted to expend the sums appropriated for the maintenance, operation, and upkeep of said airport, it will result in great damage and depreciation, while, on the other hand, such sums so spent will result in saving and economy to the taxpayers of the city of Charlotte; that unless the said city is permitted to spend said sums thus appropriated, it will be unable to maintain said airport to the standard of conditions prescribed by the Federal Government for the air mail center and said service will be withdrawn, thus resulting in loss of revenue and other attending losses! Upon the above findings of fact, the court is of the opinion that the city of Charlotte is without authority to appropriate and expend the sum of $25.00 set out in the budget for the purpose of operating and maintaining the municipal airport, and is also without authority to appropriate and expend the sum of $5,000 for that purpose under the provisions of an ordinance passed by the council of the city of Charlotte, a copy of which ordinance being attached to the complaint, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ without the question being submitted to and approved by a vote of a majority of the qualified voters as provided in Article VII, section 7, of the Constitution of North Carolina: It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defendants, and each of them, be enjoined and restrained from expending any sum for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a municipal airport until and when the question of levying such tax has been submitted to and *74approved by'a majority of the qualified voters of the city of Charlotte. This 8 November, 1937. Wilson Warlick, Judge presiding.”
It is to be noted that (1) “the appropriation of $25.00 was made to be expended towards the maintenance, operation, and upkeep of the said airport,” and that (2) “the $5,000 . . . transferred from the contingent fund to the airport fund was money derived from taxation and was not an unappropriated surplus fund derived from other sources.” It is apparent that the revenues from the airport are insufficient to maintain it in such a way that it would retain its status as an airmail distributing center and a regular passenger and express depot. Unless its revenues are supplemented by tax funds, the large investment of the city will rapidly depreciate, its usefulness will be increasingly lessened until it is ultimately destroyed, and that which was rightly conceived as a far-sighted, advantageous, and progressive enterprise will die for want of sufficient public support during the early years of the project.
The citizens of Charlotte voted a $50,000 bond issue to construct this municipal airport. Only 119 votes were cast against the bond issue. The Federal Government spent $325,000, and the State Highway and Public Works Commission another $35,000, to complete this airport. When the citizens of Charlotte voted the bonds, when the Federal Government made the grant, and when the State project was approved, it was generally and necessarily assumed by the citizens and the Federal, State, and local officials alike that the maintenance of the airport would be upon the municipality, certainly until the project should become self-supporting. It is significant that the judgment states that upon the completion of the airport by the Federal Government about 1 June, 1937, it was “turned . . . over to the city of Charlotte for maintenance and operation.” When the citizens of Charlotte voted upon the establishment of a municipal airport, the very nature of the proposition submitted involved two elements: (1) The initial outlay of $50,000 by the city, and (2) the assumption of the general support and maintenance of the airport until such time as the airport should become self-supporting. The movement to establish the airport was initiated by the city and for the city. No other agency assumed the support of the airport. The citizens of Charlotte, by their vote, approved the airport and assumed its maintenance. By the mandate of the people, the city of Charlotte has the implied obligation to maintain this airport and to make expenditures essential to its general maintenance.
The essence of Art. YII, sec. 7, of the Constitution is the provision that no “tax be levied . . . except for necessary expenses, . . . unless by a vote of the majority of the qualified voters therein.” Only under two conditions may taxes be levied by a municipal corporation: (1) For necessary expenses of government, or (2) where voted by the *75people. Glenn v. Commissioners of Durham, 201 N. C., 233. It might well be argued that a municipal airport is essential to and a necessary expense of a city of the size and importance of Charlotte. As was said in Storm v. Wrightsville Beach, 189 N. C., 679 (681), “The question, what is a necessary expense, which is a judicial one for the courts to determine, is one that cannot be defined generally so as to fit all cases which may arise in the future. As we progress, we look for better moral and material conditions and the governmental machinery to provide them. 'Letter access to the good things of life for all people,’ safety, health, comfort, convenience in the given locality. . . . The term in the Constitution 'necessary expenses’ is not confined to expenses incurred for purposes absolutely necessary to the very life and existence of a municipality, but it has a more comprehensive meaning. It has been held in this jurisdiction that streets, waterworks, sewerage, electric lights, fire department and system, municipal building, market house, jail or guard house, are necessary expenses.”
In Goswick v. Durham, 211 N. C., at pp. 689-690, Justice Devin wrote, “While there is no contention that the construction, equipment, and maintenance of an airport and landing field is a necessary municipal expense within the meaning of Article VII, section 7, of the Constitution (Henderson v. Wilmington, 191 N. C., 269), yet it may not be improper to say that man’s constantly advancing progress in the conquest of the air as a medium for the transportation of commerce and for public and private use indicates the practical advantage and possible future necessity of adequate landing facilities for the use of the 'argosies of-magic sails . . . dropping down with costly bales’ to the same
extent that paved streets and roads are now regarded for the purposes of communication and transportation on land. Hargrave v. Comrs., 168 N. C., 626; Dysart v. City of St. Louis, 321 Mo., 514. As was said by Brogden, J., speaking for the Court in Walker v. Faison, 202 N. C., 694: “The law is an expanding science, designed to march with the advancing battalions of life and progress and to safeguard and interpret the changing needs of a commonwealth or community.”
In Starmount Co. v. Hamilton Lakes, 205 N. C., at p. 520, Justice Brogden quoted the general rule: “The courts determine what class of expenditures made or to be made by a municipal corporation come under the definition of 'necessary expense.’ ” Then he added, “That is to say, the courts determine whether a given project is a necessary expense of a municipality.” By judicial approval of particular expenditures, the list of “necessary expenses” is constantly growing, as befits the law of a progressive commonwealth. Until a particular type of expenditure is brought within the magic circle of “necessary expenses,” such expenditures cannot be made by a municipality without a vote of the citizens. *76Even though the particular type of expenditure has been approved by the court in one case, such as expenditure for a different municipality under different conditions still remains a question for the court. In Storm v. Wrightsville Beach, supra, it was declared that incinerators for the destruction of garbage, and jetties to protect the town from the ocean, are “necessary expenses.” Yet, it is quite obvious that an expensive incinerator would not be a “necessary expense” for a small, rural village, nor would jetties against the ocean be a “necessary expense” for any inland or mountain town. An expense may be a “necessary expense” for one municipality, but not a “necessary expense” for another municipality. As stated in the majority opinion, “the courts determine whether a given project is a necessary expense of a municipality.” This power of the Court to examine the necessity for a particular expenditure is not eliminated by the mere fact that an expenditure for a similar purpose, an expenditure within the same general class, has been previously approved for another municipality under quite different circumstances. The test for a “necessary expense” suggested by the majority — • whether the purpose “partakes of a governmental nature or purports to be an exercise by the city of a portion of the State’s delegated sovereignty” — is scarcely a precise one. What is, or is not, “of a governmental nature” remains a matter of judicial determination; the limitations of the phrase “of a governmental nature” are even more vague than those of the words “necessary expenses.” Bearing in mind that an expenditure for a particular purpose in one community does not set a binding precedent with respect to a similar expenditure in some other community, I think that the overwhelming logic of the instant case compels the recognition that a municipal airport at Charlotte, under the conditions set out in the judgment, is a “necessary expense.” Treating the maintenance of the airport as a “necessary expense,” it follows that the governing body of the city could levy taxes for this purpose. Tucker v. Raleigh, 75 N. C., 267; Jones v. New Bern, 152 N. C., 64.
The citizens of Charlotte approved the bond issue for the purpose of building the airport — I think that the “vote of the majority of the qualified voters” thereby complied with the requirement of Art. VII, sec. 7, of the Constitution. When the citizenship of a community expressly approves the establishment of a public project at public expense, there is necessarily the approval by the citizens of the continued operation of that project. It is inconceivable that the citizens would approve the establishment of a project which they did not wish operated thereafter. If this were not true, the entire expenditure assumed by the citizens would be wasted. In my opinion, when the citizens of Charlotte voted to establish an airport at municipal expense, their vote became a *77mandate to the governing body to continue to maintain and to operate the airport at municipal expense.
Under this latter view it becomes pertinent to examine to what extent this mandate was applicable. Certainly it extended to include the usual and ordinary maintenance, repair, and current operating expenses. If this mandate extended at all to the “maintenance” of the airport (and that it did seems abundantly demonstrated), it extended, as a minimum, to the ordinary, commonplace, and routine operation and maintenance expenditures. It seems to me that this mandate might also be extended to include expenditures for capital outlay items, such as additional hangars, under the theory that the vote of the people gave to the governing body of the city authority to expand, as well as maintain, the airport in keeping with the rapidly changing needs of a beginning enterprise.
The reasoning of Justice H. G. Connor, in Brockenbrough v. Comrs., 134 N. C., 1, is applicable here; there, at p. 16, he wrote: “The people of Charlotte have by their votes declared that a system of waterworks is essential to their corporate welfare and safety. They have empowered their municipal servants and agents to expend a large sum for securing such a system. It is not clear that this involves the duty of protecting this property and making it efficient for the very important, may we not say necessary, purpose for which it was acquired? If so, the power to contract such obligations as are necessary to discharge the duty must be found. Narrow and technical reasoning is misplaced when it is brought to bear upon an instrument framed by the people themselves, and designated as a chart upon which every man, learned or unlearned, may be able to trace the leading principle of government.’ Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 59.”
Whether the judgment of the citizens of Charlotte in establishing this airport was sound is not before this Court. The citizens have made the investment and now ask this Court the privilege of protecting it without the additional expense of a special election each year to approve the allotment of funds for an enterprise which has the almost unanimous approval of the entire taxpaying citizenship. Art. VII, sec. 7, was intended to protect the people in their rights, not to prevent them from exercising their rights after they had given their solemn judgment by ballot. When the people have spoken, the courts should be slow to thwart the popular will. The abiding and protective spirit which broods over the entire Constitution is that the will of the people, as far as it may be or has been determined, shall prevail; that which tends to defeat the expressed wishes of the sovereign citizenship is inimical to this spirit of the Constitution.
This view of the law of this case has received legislative sanction in the following clear and unequivocal terms: “The governing body or *78bodies of a city, town, and/or county which has or have established an airport or landing field, and acquired, leased, or set apart real property for such purpose, may construct, improve, equip, maintain and operate the same. The expense of such construction, improvement, maintenance and operation shall he a city, town, and/or county charge as the case may he. . . .” (Italics mine.) Public Laws 1929, ch. 87, sec. 7 (Michie’s N. C. Code, 1935, sec. 191g). "The governing hody or bodies of a city, town, and/or county to which this act is applicable (Public Laws 1929, ch. 87, sec. 2, made the act applicable to “any city or town in the State”), having power to appropriate, individually or jointly, money therein, are hereby authorized to annually appropriate and caused to he raised hy taxation in such city, ... a sum sufficient to carry out the provisions of this act. . . .” (Italics mine.) Public Laws 1929, ch. 87, sec. 8. (Michie’s N. C. Code, 1935, sec. 191h.)
Under a liberal application of the view that the approval of the people carried a mandate to the governing body to maintain and improve the airport, both the $25.00 appropriation and the $5,000 appropriation would be fully approved, even to the extent of use of the funds for the building of an additional hangar. Even under a restricted interpretation of this mandate, the $25,000 appropriation would be valid; and the $5,000 appropriation, if limited strictly to the purpose of current maintenance and general operating expenses (a limitation which is not required by the general statute), would likewise be valid. Further, under the theory that a municipal airport for Charlotte, under present conditions, is a “necessary expense,” both the $25.00 and the $5,000 appropriations for the airport would be valid. I think the facts in the present case similar to those in the case of Adams v. Durham, 189 N. C., 232.
In Nash v. Monroe, 198 N. C., 306 (307), it is said: “Undoubtedly, if the city of Monroe has the money in its treasury, it could purchase equipment for its hospital. Adams v. Durham, supra; Henderson v. Wilmington, supra.”
Streets and highways are “necessary expenses,” under Art. VII, sec. 7, of our Constitution. Airports, to facilitate the landing, flight, and accommodation of aeroplanes, traveling over air routes and carrying-passengers, freight, mail, and the varied commerce of the air, may, in the widening realm of human progress, be a necessary expense in certain localities, as the present. The expenditure of money by the city of Charlotte, a city of its size, for the maintenance of a municipal airport, is, I think, a necessary expense within the meaning of Art. VII, sec. 7, of the Constitution.
Hence, it follows that the inclusion in the budget for the fiscal year ending 20 June, 1938, of the sum of $25.00 to be expended for this purpose and for which taxes are to be levied and collected, without a vote *79of tbe people, comes witbin tbe provisions of tbe Constitution. Tbe main opinion in tbe bolding declares void tbe act of tbe General Assembly above set forth,- wbicb says: “Tbe expenses of sucb construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation shall he a city, town, or county charge as tbe case may be.”
In my opinion, tbe use of this fund, $5,000, on band, unappropriated, for tbe current maintenance and operation of tbe airport is permissible.