House bill No. 14 was introduced in the House of Eep-resentatives of 1917 and passed its three several readings on three different days, the second and third readings having'been by roll-call, with yeas and nays duly entered on the Journal, as required by section 14, Article II of the Constitution. In the Senate it was bill No. 223 and passed that body in the same manner, except that upon its third reading in the Senate certain amendments were adopted and the bill passéd its third reading as amended. The bill as amended was duly concurred in by the House of Eepresentatives, ■ but not in the manner required by section 14, Article II of the Constitution.
It is 'admitted by plaintiff that the amendments to sections 2, 5, 8, and the new section, 12-B, are not materiál. While such admission would not be binding on the courts, we concur that they are not matérial and do not invalidate the act in purview of 'the decision in Glenn v. Wray, 126 N. C., 730.
*380The plaintiff contends that the following amendments were material and rendered the bill invalid by reason of their not having passed the House in the manner required by the aforesaid provision of the Constitution, to-wit:
Section 7 was amended by inserting, “Provided,, all roads shall be laid out and constructed under the supervision of a competent and expert engineer acceptable to the central highway commission.” Section 11 was amended' so as to require that the sinking fund should amount to at least 1 per cent of the entire issue annually, the words “annually” and “at least 1 per cent of the entire issue” having been inserted. A new section was inserted, as follows: “Sec. 12a. In the event that the $75,000 of road bonds mentioned in section 6 hereof cannot be retired or exchanged, then it shall be the duty of the central highway commission created herein to assume the payment of the interest on said bonds and provide a sinking fund for the payment of the same, as is set out in chapter 449, Public-Local Laws of 1915, out of the funds received from the annual levy of taxes on the taxable property and polls in Roxboro Township under this act: Provided, that in no event shall the annual levy on the taxable property and the poll tax in Roxboro Township exceed 50 cents on each $100 worth of taxable property and $1.50 on the poll when combined, under this act and chapter 449, Public-Local Laws 1915.”
Subsequently, the General Assembly amended chapter Public-Local Laws 1917, by adding to the act before us the following as “Section 14. In the .event the provisions of this act are adopted by the voters of Person County in the manner provided by said act, then all laws and clauses of laws enacted prior to this session of the General Assembly providing for the levying of any taxes for the building or maintenance of public roads in the county of Person, or in any of the townships thereof, are hereby repealed, it being the purpose of this act to make uniform taxation for public roads in all the townships of said county of Person, and to limit such taxation to the rates and amounts herein provided for, in case the provisions of this act are adopted in the manner provided for in said act.”
We do not think that the amendments, to section 7, and section 11, in any wise affect the validity of the statute. They do not affect the taxing or other financial features of the act, and do not increase either the taxes or the obligation authorized, or impose any additional burden on the taxpayers, and therefore it was not required that the act as thus amended should again pass three several readings on three different days in the House and Senate, with the yeas and nays recorded on the second and third readings in each house.
*381Section 12 does nothing more than to direct more clearly the manner in which certain acts authorized by the original bill should be performed. Section 14 is subject to the provisions of section 6.
The intent of the Legislature was to establish a uniform system of road construction for the county of Person, which was to include Eox-boro Township, and to provide for the taking over of the roads already built or being built by Eoxboro Township, making them a part of the county system; also, to pay the debt ($75,000) issued by Eoxboro Township for road purposes, under chapter 449, Public-Local Laws .1915, either by buying them or exchanging'county bonds for them, using Eox-boro Township’s share of the proceeds of the county bonds for that purpose, or if that should be impracticable, then payment of said bonds should be assumed by the county. The object was to prevent Eoxboro Township from being taxed to pay the county bonds, and also to pay her-own bonds, and therefore the statute (section 6) provides that if the Eoxboro Township bonds “cannot be retired or exchanged, then in that event $75,000 of the issue herein provided for shall not be issued, and this amount shall be withdrawn from the portion of said bond issue which would otherwise be apportioned to Eoxboro Township.” That is by authority of the act there are outstanding $75,000 bonds issued under the act of 1915 by Eoxboro Township, and $225,000 shall be issued by the county, Eoxboro Township being credited on its proportionate part of principal and interest of $300,000, with the payment of principal and interest on the $75,000 bonds already issued by it for the construction and maintenance of the roads in that township.
There is no inhibition in the Constitution upon the authority of the Legislature to authorize (section 2) the issuance of bonds falling due in installments of ten years, in the discretion of the central highway commission, at intervals. It is a matter that rests within the province of the Legislature. Such provision does not, however, authorize the issuance of bonds falling due at intervals of five years.
We think that all the power and authority to borrow money, pledge the faith of the county, and to levy taxes which are conferred by chapter ., Public-Local Laws 1917, are to be found in the original bill, and that such power was in no wise increased or affected by the amendments, and hence that such amendments are not material and did not require that the bill as amended should be read again three times in each house, with the yeas and nays recorded on the second and third readings in each house.
There is nothing in this case that raises the question of the validity of the poll tax authorized by the acts. It does not appear that, added to the poll tax already existing, the amount of the poll tax would exceed the constitutional limitation of $2; but if it did, speaking for myself only, *382tbe Constitution would simply restrict and forbid any addition by tbe act to tbe .poll tax wbicb would make tbe total poll tax exceed $2. It is true that tbe Constitution also provides that tbe poll tax can be applied only to education and tbe support of tbe poor; but again speaking only for myself, tbis does not forbid tbe levying of tbe poll-tax under tbis statute provided, or until, tbe aggregate amount shall attain tbe limitation of $2; but tbe poll tax, whenever levied, cannot be applied to any other purpose than that specified in tbe Constitution-. Neither of these matters would in any wise affect tbe validity of tbe bonds, as tbe purchaser thereof would take with notice that tbe poll tax cannot exceed $2 and cannot be -applied to any other purposes than education and tbe support of tbe poor. These questions, as already stated, are not presented by any exception in tbis record.-
• With tbe modification that tbe act confers discretion to issue bonds falling due at intervals of ten-years, but not at intervals of five years, tbe judgment is
Affirmed.