The opinion
On Rehearing.
The argument in appellees’ motion for rehearing, by which they seek to show that we erred in our decision of the constitutional question, presents nothing which was not fully considered in the Original opinion. We deem it unnecessary to write further upon that question.
The point that even if the bonds were void for the reasons discussed in the original opinion, the same were nevertheless validated by the provisions of section 7, c. 122, p. 320, General Laws, passed by the 43rd Legislature (Vernon’s Ann. Oiv. St. art. 1114c), is new and requires further notice. The provision is as follows: “The actions of all cities and towns and of all officials in passing ordinances, adopting resolutions, executing securities'and delivering securities to accomplish the objects permitted under this Act are hereby expressly authorized and validated in like manner as if this law had been effective at the time of such actions, subject to the provisions of Section 5.”
We shall assume, without deciding, that this act validates everything which it purports to validate. We are of the opinion that it does not purport to validate the bonds in question. Some of the language standing alone may.be conceded to be broad enough to do so. If so, however, that language is limited by the provision that the validation is “in like manner as if this law had been effective at the time of such actions,” etc. Said chapter 122, General Laws of the 43rd Legislature, of which said section 7 is a part, does not authorize the issuance of the bonds in question in excess of $5,000 for extensions, without a vote of the people. If, therefore, said act had been in force when the bonds were issued, they would not have been valid.' It seems clear that the validating provision is limited to such acts and proceedings as would be valid tinder such later act.
It is therefore our conclusion that the motion for rehearing should be overruled, and it is so ordered.