The opinion
MONTGOMERY, J.,
dissenting.
A strong sense of duty after a careful investigation of the matter in dispute, compels me to dissent from the opinion of the Court. If I had a reasonable doubt on the question involved, I would gladly acquiesce in the conclusion arrived at by the Court, but to my mind the error in the judgment of the Court below is so clear that I am forced to say so for myself.
The plaintiff institution owes its existence to Chapter 549 of the Acts of 1891. An annual appropriation' was made, under that act, of $2,500, “for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the act.” It is. enacted in Section 3, “That the leading object of the institution shall be to teach practical agriculture and the mechanic arts and such branches of learning as relate thereto, not excluding academical and classical instruction.” There was at the time not a foot of ground for a building of any hind that belonged to the college, ,nor was there any authority conferred on the Board of Trustees to purchase a site. In fact, it was made the duty of the Board of Trustees to receive propositions from the various localities of the State offering inducements for the locating of the college, in the shape of gifts of land or money. In the meantime, and until the site and buildings should have been furnished for the location of the college, the Board of Trustees were authorized to' make temporary provision for the industrial and mechanical education of the colored youth of the State at Some established institution of learning within the State.
*373 Tbe General Assembly, at its session of 1895, Chapter 146, made an annual appropriation, tbe language of tbe act being as follows: “That tbe sum of $5,000 annually be and is hereby appropriated for tbe support, maintenance, equipment, enlargement and extension of tbe North Carolina Agricultural and Mechanical College for tbe Colored Race, to be paid on tbe first days of April and October of each year, out of tbe funds of tbe treasury not otherwise appropriated.”
Tbe Legislature, at its session of 1901, Chapter 737, made an annual appropriation for this institution of $5,000, “in addition to its standing appropriation.”
What was its standing appropriation ? Beyond question, ir. my opinion, the $5,000 appropriated by tbe act of 1895. Tbe act of 1895 was an implied repeal of tbe act of 1891, in so far as tbe amount of tbe appropriation was concerned. Tbe law, it is true, does- not favor implied revocations; but whenever a statute in a different manner makes provision for tbe same thing provided for in a former statute, tbe former statute is repealed. Every affirmative statute is a repeal by implication of a prior affirmative statute sp far as it is contrary to it. State v. Woodside, 31 N. C., 496 . Tbe amount appropriated annually in tbe act of 1891 was $2,500; tbe amount appropriated annually in 1895 was $5,000 — both having been for tbe same purpose in different amounts — the last act repeals tbe first. I can not agree in tbe statement in tbe opinion of tbe Court that tbe amount — $2,500—of tbe appropriation under tbe act of 1891 was intended for “organization expenses” in carrying out tbe provisions of tbe act. Tbe only expense of organization that could have arisen under the.act of 1891 was that of tbe per diem of members of Board of Trustees on account of meetings of tbe Board of Trustees. Tbe appropriation, as we have seen, was to be used in the education of tbe colored youth of tbe State at some established institution of learning within tbe State, until tbe *374 site and. buildings should be furnished. The buildings were provided by appropriation for that special purpose by the act of 1893, Chapter 252, of $5,000 for each of the years 1893 and 1894. The act of 1895 embraces the same objects and purposes of the act of 1891 — the support and maintenance of the college, as well as an additional amount for the equipment, enlargement and extension of the college.
Eor these reasons I think there was error in the judgment of the Court below.
Clark, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion.