(1) State treasury. No money shall be drawn from the State treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and an accurate account of the receipts and expenditures of State funds shall be published annually.
(2) Local treasury. No money shall be drawn from the treasury of any county, city or town, or other unit of local government except by authority of law.
(1969, c. 1200, s. 1.)
History Note. - The provisions of subsection (1) of this section are similar to those of Art. XIV, § 3, Const. 1868. The provisions of subsection (2) are similar to those of Art. VII, § 7, Const. 1868, as amended in 1962.
CASE NOTES
Editor's Note. - Most of the cases cited below were decided under former Art. XIV, § 3, Const. 1868.
Legislative Authority Required. - Subsection (1) of this section means that there must be legislative authority in order for money to be validly drawn from the treasury. In other words, the legislative power is supreme over the public purse. White v. Hill, 125 N.C. 194, 34 S.E. 432 (1899), citing Garner v. Worth, 122 N.C. 250, 29 S.E. 364 (1898).
Moneys paid into the hands of the State Treasurer by virtue of a State law become public funds for which the Treasurer is responsible, and may be disbursed only in accordance with legislative authority. Gardner v. Board of Trustees, 226 N.C. 465, 38 S.E.2d 314 (1946); State v. Davis, 270 N.C. 1, 153 S.E.2d 749, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 828, 88 S. Ct. 87, 19 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1967).
Subsection (1) of this section states in language which no man can misunderstand that the legislative power is supreme over the public purse. State v. Davis, 270 N.C. 1, 153 S.E.2d 749, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 828, 88 S. Ct. 87, 19 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1967).
Subsection (1) as Bar to Judicial Action. - Subsection (1) of this section effectually bars any judicial action to enforce collection of liabilities against the State, and the courts cannot direct the State Treasurer to pay such claims, however just and unquestioned, when there is no legislative appropriation to pay the same. Garner v. Worth, 122 N.C. 250, 29 S.E. 364 (1898).
When Mandamus Will Lie. - It is only when the legislative department has appropriated a certain fund to the payment of a liability incurred or to be incurred and the Auditor or Treasurer refuses to obey the legislative mandate that the court can issue its mandamus to compel him to do so. Garner v. Worth, 122 N.C. 250, 29 S.E. 364 (1898).
An order to make retroactive payments under the federal aid to dependent families program looks directly to the payment of public funds out of the State treasury in violation of this section. Dawkins v. Craig, 483 F.2d 1191 (4th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 938, 94 S. Ct. 1454, 39 L. Ed. 2d 495 (1974).
The State Treasurer may refuse to pay a warrant of the Auditor if it appears that the law under which it is issued is unconstitutional or the claim is not within the terms of the statute under which it is brought. Martin v. Clark, 135 N.C. 178, 47 S.E. 397 (1904).
Receipt of Funds by General Assembly from State or Agencies. - The validity of any statute which provides that funds accruing to the State or any of its agencies "shall be received by the General Assembly" is questioned. Although the Constitution gives the General Assembly broad power to raise revenue and make appropriations, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the legislative branch actually to receive funds. In re Powers, 295 S.E.2d 589 (N.C. 1982).
Opinions of Attorney General
As to the expenditure of public funds for public recreational facilities, see opinion of Attorney General to Mr. Francis M. Coiner, Hendersonville City Attorney, 40 N.C.A.G. 494 (1969), under corresponding provisions of the Constitution of 1868.