Court Opinion

ID: 9809626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:19:03.431774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:45.788141
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
concurring, I fully agree with the opinion of Clark, C. J., that while water and light are not in themselves such necessary expenses of the town as to authorize an unusual levy of tax or the incurring of a debt without proper legislative authority and the approval of a popular vote, they are proper subjects of expense to be provided by the municipal authorities out of the current revenues of the town. In fact, I think it is the duty of the board of aldermen to provide them to the fullest practical extent without overstepping the constitutional provision. As this duty is incidental to their tenure of office, it is logically coterminus therewith. In common with all other duties, it begins with their induction into office and ends with the expiration of their term. This seems *602to me the only solution of the matter that is capable of practical application. My views are so fully expressed in Smith v. Goldsboro, 121 N. C., 350, and Thrift v. Elizabeth City, 122 N. C., 31, in both cases speaking for a unanimous Court, that but little remains for me to say. I now realize more fully than ever before the absolute necessity of standing' by the doctrines laid down in those opinions, and of throwing around the honest tax payer the fullest protection of the law. Even under the strict construction placed by this Court upon municipal powers, many of our cities and towns, especially those of most rapid growth, are assuming pecuniary burdensi that must prove most onerous in less prosperous times. With many of its richest citizens having a legal residence on their farm or some other out-of-the-way place, and its largest corporations operating under foreign charters, the average city tax payer already bears a burden out of proportion of his share of the common benefit. Let us not add to it by letting down the bars that the Constitution has erected for his protection. Let us give at least some voice in incurring the debt to him who will be called upon to pay the debt.
I am aware of the vexed problems that confront us and the difficulty of their solution, but they must be met by giving the fullest protection to the citizen without unnecessarily hampering municipal officers in the legitimate discharge of their duties. In Thrift v. Elizabeth City, supra, this Court says, on page 34: “We see no substantial difference between issuing bonds to run for thirty years and the making of a building contract for the same -period, requiring the town to pay a large yearly sum which cannot be reduced, but which may be greatly enlarged.” In the light of a larger experience and maturer judgment, I think there is a difference, and that decidedly in favor of the bonds. If a city issues its bonds and buys its water-works or light plant, it has something of value that will become more valuable with its increase *603in population; while on the other hand, if the city pays rent, its rental will necessarily increase with its increased consumption. The entire trend of modem authority is to restrict all municipal contracts to a reasonable- duration; and realizing the shifting scale of judicial discretion, I am in favor of some definite rule, not only for our own guidance, but for that of the general public. That which seems most logical in its nature and practical in its application is to restrict such contracts to the official term of those by whom they are made.