The opinion
Connor, J.,
after stating the facts. It is conceded and so recited in the Statute and the record, that the bonds authorized to be issued are for the purpose of raising funds with which to discharge an indebtedness incurred for necessary expenses. That the legislature had the power to pass the act is settled by numerous decisions of this court
Smathers v. Qommissioners,
125 N. C., 480 ;
Jones v. Commissioners,
50 S. E. Rep., 291 .
It is equally well settled that, when the Act has been passed in accordance with the provisions of Art. II., section 14 of the Constitution, an amendment which does not increase the amount of the bonds or the tax to be levied, or otherwise materially change the original -bill may be adopted by the concurrence of both houses of the General Assembly.
Glenn v. Wray,
126 N. C., 730 ;
Brown v. Stewart,
134 N. C., 357 . Section II. simply authorized the Commissioners, if they should deem it wise, to purchase at the end of five years, and annually thereafter, one-fifth of the bonds. This
*456
was in no way obligatory and we are nnable to see bow its omission by amendment, materially affected the original bill. If the Commissioners bad seen fit to exercise their discretion the, annual tax may bave been increased — it certainly conld not bave been decreased. We said in
Brown v. Stewart, supra,
“We can see no reason wby the amendment imposing no tax, creating no debt nor increasing the amount of the bonds or the rate of interest thereon conld not be adopted by the Senate and incorporated into the original bill on and before its second reading.” Tbis language applies to the case before us — wherein a section having similar relation to the original bill is stricken out. We are of the opinion that His Honor’s judgment is correct and must be
Affirmed.