Tbe first question involved: Is tbe county of Stanly authorized to issue bonds for tbe purpose of erecting new school buildings, making additions to old school buildings and purchasing furniture and equipment for tbe same, cost not to exceed $209,000 to Stanly County, under tbe constitutional authority, under tbe general laws of tbe State, or under chapter 427 of tbe Public Laws of 1935, known as “Emergency County Bond Act of 1935,” without a vote of tbe people as provided in chapter 443, Public-Local Laws of 1927, relating to Stanly County? We think so, under tbe facts and circumstances of this case. On tbe latter aspect of tbe question, tbe matter has been decided in Burt v. Biscoe, ante, 70. Tbe Acts of 1935, ebs. 426, 427, are practically tbe same on tbe aspect here considered.
In tbe agreed statement of facts is tbe following: “That tbe erection of new school buildings and tbe repair of old school buildings and tbe purchase of furniture and equipment for school buildings are necessary expenses of tbe county of Stanly in order to provide tbe necessary facilities for.all tbe children in Stanly County with tbe six months school term as provided by tbe Constitution of tbe State.”
On this aspect this matter has also been decided adversely to plaintiffs’ contention in Julian v. Ward, 198 N. C., 480. At pp. 481-2 it is said: “Tbe question involved: Does a public-local statute forbidding ‘the 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 administrative agency of tbe State, from issuing bonds for tbe purpose of purchasing land, building tbe necessary schoolhouses, 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.” Reeves v. Board of Education, 204 N. C., 74; Evans v. Mecklenburg Co., 205 N. C., 560; Hickory v. Catawba Co., 206 N. C., 165; Taylor v. Board of Education, 206 N. C., 263; Hemric v. Comrs. of Yadkin, 206 N. C., 845.
Tbe amount sought to be borrowed for school purposes is within tbe limitation fixed by N. C. Code, 1935 (Micbie), sec. 1334 (17)' — (1927, cb. 81, sec. 17), as Stanly County has assumed all outstanding indebtedness for school' purposes. If tbe bonds are issued under tbe “Emergency *81County Bond Act of 1935,” taxes for the payment of principal and interest will not be subject to any limitation imposed by any existing law. Section 7, chapter 427, Public Laws of 1935.
Tbe second question involved: Is tbe county of Stanly authorized to issue bonds for tbe purpose of erecting a new jail, with plumbing, beating, and electrical work, cost not to exceed $33,000 to Stanly County, under tbe constitutional authority, under tbe general laws of tbe State, or under chapter 427 of tbe Public Laws of 1935, known as “Emergency County Bond Act of 1935,” without a vote of tbe people, as provided in chapter 443, Public-Local Laws of 1927, relating to Stanly County? We think so, under tbe facts and circumstances of this case. On tbe latter aspect of tbe question. this matter has been decided in Burt v. Town of Biscoe, supra.
N. C. Code of 1935 (Micbie), sec. 1297, in part, is as follows: “Tbe boards of commissioners of tbe several counties have powers: (9) To erect and repair county buildings — to erect and repair tbe necessary buildings and to raise, by taxation, tbe moneys therefore.” Section 1317: “There shall be kept and maintained in good and sufficient repair in every county a courthouse and common jail, at tbe expense of tbe county wherein tbe same are situated. Tbe boards of commissioners of tbe several counties respectively shall lay and collect taxes, from year to year, as long as may be necessary, for tbe purpose of building, repairing, and furnishing their several courthouses and jails, in such manner as they think proper; and from time to time shall order and establish such rules and regulations for tbe preservation of tbe courthouse, and for the government and management of tbe prisons, as may be conducive to tbe interests of tbe public and tbe security and comfort of tbe persons confined.”
In Jackson v. Commissioners, 171 N. C., 379, at p. 382, it is said: “Tbe building of a courthouse is a necessary expense, and tbe board has full power, in their discretion, to repair tbe old one or to erect a new one, and in order to do so they may contract such debt as is necessary for tbe purpose. Vaughn v. Comrs., 117 N. C., 429; Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C., 244; Haskett v. Tyrrell Co., 152 N. C., 714. It should be borne in mind, however, by tbe county commissioners that while they are clothed with tbe necessary power to contract such indebtedness, they have no power to levy a special tax out of which to pay tbe interest and create a sinking fund, unless they have tbe special authority of tbe General Assembly.”
In tbe agreed statement of facts is tbe following: “That tbe erection of a new jail in Stanly County is a public necessity; that several grand juries have recommended to tbe court that a new jail should be built at once, and tbe court has ordered tbe commissioners to take immediate *82action to build said jail, that tbe present jail is considered unsafe and insanitary.”
N. O. Code of 1935 (Micbie), sec. 1321 (a), is as follows: “The board of commissioners of the various counties throughout the State are authorized and empowered to issue bonds or notes for the purpose of borrowing money with which to erect, build, construct, alter, repair, and improve courthouses and jails, and to purchase the necessary equipment and furniture to be used therein.”
It is the duty of the county commissioners to provide a sufficient courthouse and keep it in repair. It is their duty both to erect and keep in repair. They are cognate duties, and failure to do them is “neglect of duty.” S. v. Leeper, 146 N. C., 655.
In the County Finance Act, Public Laws 1927, ch. 81, sec. 8, is the following: “The special approval of the General Assembly is hereby given to the issuance by counties of bonds and notes for the -special purpose named in this section, and to the levy of the property taxes for the payment of such bonds and notes and interest thereon. Accordingly, authority is hereby given to all counties in the State, under the terms and conditions herein described, to issue bonds and notes, and to levy property taxes for the payment of the same, with interest thereon, for the following purposes, including therein purchase of the necessary land and, in the case of building, the necessary equipment: (a) Erection and purchase of schoolhouses. (d) Erection and purchase of a courthouse and jails, including a public auditorium within and as a part of a courthouse.” N. C. Code of 1935 (Michie), sec. 1334 (8) (a), (d) ; Harrell v. Comrs. of Wilson, 206 N. C., 225 (227).
The before mentioned acts and the “Emergency County Bond Act of 1935” are acts relating to the same subject matter and must be construed in pari materia. The erection of a jail is a “necessary expense” and the “special purpose” has the “special approval” of the General Assembly.
It is said' in Glenn v. Commissioners, 201 N. C., 233 (242) (concurring opinion): “The only way to preserve the vitality of Article Y, section 6, and Article YII, section 7, of the Constitution is to adhere to the construction, as stated in the opinion of the Court, that the ‘special purpose’ for which the ‘special approval’ of the General Assembly is essential must be for a ‘necessary expense’ in contemplation of the constitutional provision.”
For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is
Reversed.