The opinion
WILLIAMS, Justice
(concurring specially) .
“Advance refunding” has already been approved in Oklahoma. This Court in the very recent case of Application of the Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, etc., 37 O.B.J. 1342, upheld as applied to the University’s Board the principle of advance refunding both with respect to advance refunding of bonds on self-liquidating projects and such refunding in combination with construction of new buildings to become part of a system of student housing and dining facilities.
It is contemplated by our Constitution,. Article X, Section 15, that the credit of the State shall not be loaned. The State owns-the beneficial interest in our turnpikes, old and new. Else, what business would it be-of the Legislature to enact concerning them ? When paid out, if ever, the respective turnpikes will become a part of our free highway system. In this case, there is-involved no lending of the State’s credit to-anyone.
Most of the other questions raised in the case have been answered in our former opinions to which reference has been made in the majority and individual opinions this-date promulgated herein.
I believe the State has the authority to-pledge its equity in existing turnpikes to-help better finance both other existing ones- and those yet to be constructed, because such equity was not obtained by the expenditure of tax money. See Application of Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, Okl., 274 P.2d 61 ; and Application of Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, supra. And for analogy see language quoted from Application of Board of Regents for Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, 196 Okl. 622 , 167 P.2d 883 as quoted in Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Okl., 365 P.2d 345 , 353-
The integrity of bonds being refunded is. not involved. When funds are received and: placed in trust and in turn invested in U. S- *881 Government bonds to await the day the bonds to be refunded may become callable and are called, the rights of holders of the old bonds are fully protected and they may properly be heard to say no more. See City of Albuquerque v. Gott, 73 N.M. 439 , 389 P.2d 207 , referred to in majority opinion herein and in our opinion in Application of the Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, supra.
I concur specially.
I am authorized to announce the concurrence of HODGES, J., in the views herein expressed.