{ "id": 8653723, "name": "E. L. KETCHIE et als. v. J. W. HEDRICK and COMMISSIONERS OF HIGH POINT", "name_abbreviation": "Ketchie v. Hedrick", "decision_date": "1923-11-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "392", "last_page": "396", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "186 N.C. 392" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "145 N. C., 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 N. C., 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657269 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/137/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 N. C., 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272681 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/134/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N. C., 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 N. C., 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656614 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0502-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 568, "char_count": 11099, "ocr_confidence": 0.467, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.364034729629527e-07, "percentile": 0.6368950467768584 }, "sha256": "b40e1da3c89eefa75406e65d9fe8ebca300a532080bbc4d827f52c16db82a374", "simhash": "1:682c83350452fbbb", "word_count": 1882 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "E. L. KETCHIE et als. v. J. W. HEDRICK and COMMISSIONERS OF HIGH POINT." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OlabK, O. J.\nTbe question presented is tbe validity of chapter 268, Private Laws 1923, wbicb authorizes tbe levy and collection of taxes for tbe benefit of tbe chamber of commerce, to be expended at their discretion for tbe purposes set forth. Tbe plaintiff contends that this is in direct contravention of tbe Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 1, wbicb reads as follows: \u201cNo county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall contract any debt, pledge its faith, or loan its credit, nor shall any tax be levied or collected by any officers of tbe same, except for tbe necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of tbe majority of tbe qualified voters therein.\u201d\nTbe defendants, in their answer, do not even allege that tbe amount thus to be levied and appropriated and turned over to tbe directors of tbe chamber of commerce is for tbe necessary expenses of tbe city of High Point, nor that it has been authorized by any vote of tbe qualified voters therein, nor that there has been any provision for an election to authorize tbe tax to be submitted to a vote of tbe people, as was done in. Hudson v. Greensboro, 185 N. C., 502.\nIt was not stated what was tbe amount of money thus sought to be levied and appropriated, though it was alleged in tbe argument here to be $30,000; but this is immaterial, for if money can be authorized to be appropriated for other than necessary expenses of tbe city, without a vote of tbe people, it can be for any amount and for any purpose whatever. Tbe sole question is whether, not being for necessary expenses and not authorized by vote of tbe people, it can be imposed and collected simply under authority of an act of tbe Legislature.\nIf it can be appropriated for other than necessary expenses without a vote of tbe people for this purpose, it can be appropriated for any purpose whatever that tbe Legislature may authorize, and we know that in local matters acts for local purposes are passed usually on request of tbe .members for tbe county in wbicb tbe municipality is situated.\nIn Keith v. Lockhart, 171 N. C., 455, Hoke, J., in a very clearly expressed and well-considered opinion, conceding that former opinions which had unduly restricted the meaning of necessary expenses of municipalities, had been given a wider construction in the opinion of Fawcett v. Mount Airy, 134 N. C., 125, by extending them to embrace furnishing lights and water, owing to the change in the customs and the necessities of the age requisite for those who live in cities, held that it was still requisite that necessary expenses, within the meaning of this act, should mean \u201cthe ordinary and usual expenditures reasonably required to enable a county (or other municipality) to properly perform its duties as part of the State government,\u201d and quotes Jones v. Comrs., 137 N. C., 579-599, where the Court said: \u201cThe term may be said to involve and include the support of the aged and infirm, the laying out and repair of public highways, the construction of bridges, the maintenance of the public peace, and administration of public justice\u2014 expenses to enable the county to carry on the work for which it was organized and given a portion of the State\u2019s sovereignty.\u201d For the same reason, former decisions construing that \u201cnecessary expenses\u201d did not include appropriations for education were overruled in Collie v. Comrs., 145 N. C., 171.\nIn the' latter case the extension of appropriations to education had been hampered by another provision of the Constitution restricting the rate of taxation. But all these cases extending the meaning of the words, \u201cnecessary expenses,\u201d were due to the enlarged scope of governmental expenses, causing a broader vision and a very proper growth in the recognized needs and requirements of municipal government. They were not based upon any idea that \u201cnecessary expenses\u201d would take in matters which were not required as necessary governmental expenses. We know of no reason why the expenses and purposes of a nongovernmental body like a chamber of commerce should become necessary expenses of government. Those who compose such bodies are usually business men of standing, character, and influence in their respective communities, and they are actuated by patriotic motives to advance the public good. But they are in no sense governmental. They are neither elected nor appointed by public authority. They exercise no governmental duty; they have heretofore contributed not only their time; but of their means, but they are not required to do so, and have been actuated by motives for the public good. .They are neither a charity nor educational.\nIf chambers of commerce, composed of business men and serving the advancement of the community in financial matters, can be termed governmental simply because they claim to be advancing the public welfare, from their standpoint, and taxation can be levied upon the entire community to advance the ideas that \u201cin their discretion\u201d they deem for the public welfare, we know of no reason why the entire public shall not in like manner be taxed for the benefit of the Rotary clubs, Kiwanis clubs, and Lions clubs, who, also, as well as the chambers of commerce, are composed of many of our best citizens, and who in the same manner are actuated by patriotic motives to advance the public welfare. Then the ladies have their sororities, the Daughters of the Confederacy, and many other admirable societies for the public good; and there will be no reason why there should not also be embraced as subjects for support by taxation the labor unions, who in their sphere are equally patriotic and are endeavoring to advance the best interests of the community as they see it.\nThe limitation of the Constitution is very wise, and too clear for us to misconceive its meaning. It restricts taxation to necessary governmental purposes, except when a purpose outside that sphere has secured a majority vote of the registered voters authorizing taxation to be levied for such purpose. The Legislature has no power given it by the Constitution to authorize appropriation or a levy of taxes by the authorities of any county, city, or town, except for necessary expenses thereof, \u201cunless authorized by a majority of the registered voters.\u201d\nIf the Legislature could pass beyond this line, there is no subject, and no extent, of taxation which would not be sought for and advocated by its friends. There would be a steady conflict between the friends of the different causes seeking public aid, and there would be an unlimited source of friction between them, and an unlimited amount of taxation resultant by a possible combination between the friends of powerful organizations.\nWe have the highest respect for the members of the chambers of commerce in our cities and towns, and believe that their motives are to serve the public welfare, just as we have for the other organizations named, but that does not make their support a \u201cnecessary expense\u201d of the municipality, and, therefore, the public cannot be taxed under our Constitution for the support of these organizations unless a majority of the registered voters so decide. In like manner, if the cities and towns could be taxed for the support of the chambers of commerce the counties could be taxed for the support of the cooperative associations for the sale of tobacco and cotton, and the farmers union, for those bodies also have at heart the public interest.\nCases cited by defendants\u2019 counsel, if in any wise in point, are from other states, which presumably have not the same restrictive provision in this regard as ours, or they are oases turning upon tbe question whether the expenditure is for a necessary governmental expense. There is none in our reports which is in conflict with the views we have expressed in this opinion.\nThe motion for an injunction should be granted, for there is no conflict as to the facts.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "OlabK, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. Frank Floivers for plaintiffs.", "Peacock & Dalton and King, Sapp & King for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "E. L. KETCHIE et als. v. J. W. HEDRICK and COMMISSIONERS OF HIGH POINT.\n(Filed 7 November, 1923.)\nConstitutional Daw \u2014 Taxation \u2014 Municipal Corporations \u2014 Cities and Towns \u2014 Chamber of Commerce.\nArticle VII, section 7, of our State Constitution, restricting the power of the Legislature from allowing counties, cities and towns to contract a debt, pledge its faith or loan its credit, or to levy or collect any tax except for the necessary expense thereof, is with reference to the county, city or town as a State governmental agency, and does not authorize an appropriation of a certain per cent of taxes levied upon their taxpayers for the use or disposition of a chamber of commerce of a city, without the approval of the qualified voters therein ascertained by an election duly held for that purpose.\nAppeal by .plaintiff from Shaw, J., at chambers, 16 June, 1923, refusing a continuance of the restraining order which had been granted by Stack, J. \u25a0\nThis action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and other taxpayers of the city of High Point to test the validity of chapter 268, Private Laws 1923, entitled \u201cAn act to aid in the development of the city of High Point,\u201d which provides that the \u201cMayor and City Council of the City of High Point shall annually set apart and appropriate from the fund derived annually from the general taxes in said city an amount of not less than one-thirtieth of one per cent nor more than one-tenth of one per cent upon the assessed valuation of all real and personal property taxable in said city, which fund shall be used and expended under the direction and control of the directors of the Chamber of Commerce of High Point, N. C., under such rules and regulations as they shall prescribe for the purpose of aiding and encouraging the location of manufacturing, industrial, and commercial plants in and near said city, the encouraging of building railroads thereto, and for such other purposes as will, in the discretion of the said directors of the Chamber of Commerce of High Point, increase the population, taxable property, and business prospects of said city.\u201d\nUpon application of the plaintiff and others, taxpayers of said city, to restrain the defendants, the city government, from levying, collecting, appropriating and disbursing said tax, upon the ground stated in the complaint, that the governing and taxing body of the city of High Point are without authority in law to levy said tax and collect the same and appropriate it to pay expenses of the chamber of commerce for the purposes stated in the act, for the reason that \u201cthe Chamber of Commerce of tbe said city of High Point is no proper part of tbe said municipality and no department of tbe same, for tbe expenses and maintenance of wbicb taxes can be levied and collected by tbe authorities of tbe town,\u201d and asked a restraining order and an injunction against tbe mayor and board of aldermen. A restraining order was issued by Stack, J., on 12 June, 1923, returnable before Shaw, J., on 23 June, wbo denied tbe motion for an injunction and dissolved tbe restraining order. Appeal by plaintiffs.\nJ. Frank Floivers for plaintiffs.\nPeacock & Dalton and King, Sapp & King for defendants." }, "file_name": "0392-01", "first_page_order": 456, "last_page_order": 460 }