The opinion
BROWN, J.,
dissenting: I think it .is manifest from reading the act of 1915 making the appropriation of $10,000 that it was the purpose of the General Assembly that the act should be operative like all other appropriations for State institutions, for two years only. This is evidenced by the fact that appropriations are made for the State Hospital for the colored race at Goldsboro for the year 1915 and the year 1916, and for the support and maintenance of the State Hospital at Morgan-ton, for the support of the North Carolina School for the Deaf at Morganton, for the support of the State Laboratory of Hygiene at Raleigh; and it is clear by using the word “annually” in those sections in which it appears that the General Assembly meant only for each of two years — that is, for the years'1915 and 1916, the term of the General Assembly. It has been the unvarying rule of the General Assembly of North Carolina at each regular session to pass a general appropriation bill covering the two years until its next session.
The appropriation for tubreculosis extension work from its very character ought not to be taken out of the general rule that limits such appropriations to the two years intervening between the sessions of the General Assembly. The need for such appropriation and the amount *817 required must of necessity vary, aud it is proper that eacb recurring Legislature should pass on the amount required to continue such work .and also whether it shall be continued at all or not.
The appropriation act for State institutions enacted by the Legislature of 1917 indicates by its title that it was an act to make provision for the Tuberculosis Sanatorium and its work as well as all other State institutions. The fact that the previous appropriation of $10,000 for tuberculosis extension work was not embraced in the act is conclusive evidence, to my mind, that the General Assembly did not intend to continue it. The lawmakers may have concluded that results did not justify it.