*1 Cаrolina, MEDLOCK, Attorney Ex STATE of South Relatione T. Travis General, Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE FAMILY FARM AUTHORITY,Respondent. DEVELOPMENT
(306 (2d) 605) E.S. *2 Atty. Medlock, Atty. Gen. T. Travis Retired Gen. Daniel R. Deputy Atty. Sloan, Columbia, McLeod and Gen.Frank K. for appellant. T. McNair, Randall Bell and William E. Craven Glenn, Konduros, Corley, Singletary, Dibble, Porter & Colum- respondent. bia, for 11, 1983.
Aug.
Ness, Justice: validity 179, 15,§
This action tests the of Act No. Family Act, Development Farm now codified at S. C. Code Ann. seq. (Cum. 1982). Supp. judge § 46-47-10 et The trial held that constitutional, and we affirm. empowers The Act to issue revenue bonds to provide loans to low and moderate income farmers through (1) financing: loans, three methods of (2) direct loans to institutions, lending (3) purchases. loan Under the first *3 method, Authority may the issue bonds and proceeds loan the qualified farmers. The to second method allows the Authority proceeds qualified lending to lend bond to institutions; the must then lend to low and institution moderate income farm- specified a time. ers within Under the third method, the Authority may proceeds purchase use bond to loans made to qualified income farmers low and moderate from lending institutions.
Appellant first contends the Act III, violates § Article 17 of requiring the South Carolina Constitution legislative thаt only subject. relate to one enactments purpose of Article (1) § The 17 is prevent to Assembly being from General misled into passing bills containing provisions not indicated in titles, their subject public proposed (2) apprise the legisla opportunity to be heard. Maner Maner, v. tion, giving it an C., (2d) (1982). liberally E. 533 We have S. 296 S. construed this uphold legislation practicable, where provision to and have provision’s requirements consistently held the are satisfied general subject when the title of an act states the of provisions legislation germane and the of the act are to that subject. Hercules, Commission, Inc. v. The S. C. Tax al., et 274
319 al., Snipes, 213 137, 262 (2d) (1980); McCollum E. v. et S. S. C. (1948). 254, 49 E. A statute will not be declared S. S. C. clearly the constitution unless it violates unconstitutional Hercules, The S. C. Tax beyond reasonable doubt. Inc. v. Commission, supra. subject of No. 179 is the authorizаtion of
The Act government pro indebtedness to fund various bonded empowers the to issue grams. Section 15 provide low to income farm loans for moderate bonds Moreover, families, germane subject the act. and is thus specifically title.1 We § content of 15 is referred to within the Act falls constitutional limits. hold Amended, Relating Act To Amend Act 1377 Of To The “An As Capital Improvement Bonds, State Of So As To Authorize Issuance Bonds; Depart Of Additional To Reduce Authorizations For The Issuance Health; Department Impose Education And The Of Mental To ment Of Governing Budget Requirements On Boards On The And Or Commissions Board And The Joint Bond Review Committee Before Permanent Control Projects May Improvement Capital Improvement In Authorized Bond Acts Implemented; Require And To Confirmation Of The General Be Established Assembly Projects Approved Implementаtion For Not For Within A Certain Time; Projects; Require Provide For To A To Deauthorization Of Review Of Identifying Project Operation; Plan Sources Of Funds For To Re Detailed quire Updates Operating Financing Of Cost Plan And Submission Of Advice Updates To Certain Boards And Committees And Recommedation Of Of Rеsponses Updated Plan; Agencies Appropriate Require To The All State To Improvement To Submit Institutions Overall Permanent Plans When And Implementation Seeking Approval Improvement Projects Or Of Permanent Requirements Plans; Define The Content To Of The To Provide That And Be Costs Shall Paid From The Issuance Proceeds Of Bonds And To Among Agencies The Allocation Of For The Costs And Institutions Provide Receiving Authorizations; Engineering To Provide That Architectural And Project Authorization; Study Be Shall Contained In The To Costs Amend 4-29-10, Carolina, 1976,Relating As Amended. Code Of Laws Of South Section Dеvelopment Projects, So Industrial As To Include Within The Definition To Any Enterprise ‘Project’ Engaged Business, Including But Of Commercial To, Wholesale, Establishments; Retail Or Limited Other Mercantile Not Buildings; Computer Centers; Tourism, Sports And Recreational Facil Office ities; *4 Facilities; Lodging And Trade Show Public Convention And Certain Facilities, ‘Tourism, Sports And To Define Recreational And Restaurant And Facilities’; Any ‘Project’ That To Provide Portion Of The Of Is Definition Severable; 4-29-60, Amended, Relating Amend Section To As To Industrial Projects, Project Development Undertaking So As To Provide A That Before Muniсipal Corporation County Governing Body Among Or Shall Find Project Things Anticipated Locality By Is That The To Benefit The Other Services, Employment, Providing Recreation Or Other Public Benefits Not Provided; Require Report To State Treasurer To To Certain Then Com Immediately Selling Obligation Anticiрation After General mittees Bonds Or
320 X, 11 of § violates Article
Appellant next contends permits pledg- it Constitution because Carolina the South private individuals. credit for the benefit of ing the State’s lending of the State’s credit that there is no We have held pledged. John- taxing powers are generаl credit and its unless 345, Agency, 287 Municipal 277 S. C. Power son v. Piedmont Riley, 276 S. C. State, ex rel. McLeod v. (2d) (1982); S. E. 476 case, itself (1981). In the act 323, E. this 278 S. taxing general resort to the State’s specifically prohibits powers §at 46-47-180: authority obligations shall other
“The bonds or obligation or its create an of the State debt nor not be a Any obligations bonds or issued political subdivisions —. authority special obligations of it. Neither shall be by the on any political subdivision shall be liable the State nor they payable any funds other be out of nor shall the bonds authority pledged and all bonds than those pursuant chapter to this shall obligations issued other a statement to such effect.” the face contain on 219, Housing Authority, 271 S. C. S. C. State v. Bauer (1978), provision we (2d) 869 held a similar S. E. liability. pecuniary protect the State from sufficient ap protection, we find the same thus affords This statute merit. рellant’s exception without 1965, Amended, Housing Relating Notes; Act 488 of As To Student To Amend Housing College, Shall Winthrop Facilities So As To Provide That Student At Facilities, Necessary Bonds The Amount Of Related To Increase Include All Authorizing May The Issuance Of And The Procedure For Which Be Issued Parity Rеquiring A A Bonds To Be Issued On To Eliminate Proviso Them And Bonds; By Adding Chapter Outstanding 14 To Code To Amend With Bonds, 11, Outstanding
321 Next, appellant argues equal protection the Act denies provides it group. because loan for a limited benefits requirements equal protection The if of are satisfied (1) thе a classification bears reasonable to the relation legislative purpose effected; sought (2) to be the mem bers of the class are treated alike under similar circumstances conditions; (3) and the classification rests on some rea Bauer, swpra. sоnable basis.
The determination of whether a classification is rea initially legislature is sonable one for and will not arbitrary. plainly Solomon, be set aside unless State v. 550, 141 (2d) (1965); 245 S. C. S. E. 818 Glens Falls Insurance City Columbia, 237, 130 (2d) Co.v. 242 (1963). S. C. S. E. 573 of classification, In support legislature found that low acquire and middle inсome farmers cannot the resources necessary industry. to farming maintain the State’s vital designed provide are classifications to low and middle income a acquiring farmers means of the needed resources. Since appellant presented refuting finding, no evidеnce this we Bauer, conclude the supra. classification is reasonable. Appellant any asserts that because the loan limit to $625,000.00, family one farmer or farm is the Act does not serve purpose benefitting the stated to low mod capital erate farm high expendi income families. Given machinery farmer, tures for required average land and we say rationally cannot the Act is not to related its intended purpose.
Next, appellant I, § contends the Act violates Article 3 of the South a Carolina Constitution because it doеs not serve public purpose. recognized legislation
We have that which aids and promotes agriculture public purpose. serves a valid Marketing S. C.Farm Bureau Association v. S. C.State Authority, C., (2d) (1982). public Ports S. 293 S. E. purpose destroyed merely is not because benefits will accrue individuals, private necessary legislation to nor is it for the people.Bauer, supra; Baehr, serve all the Anderson v. 265S. C. 153, 217 (1975). S. E. program directly will benefit segment a substantial the State’s farmers and the State as by improving economy. a whole the farm We the Act hold public purрose. serves a valid is unconstitutional
Finally, appellant maintains performance governmental func- delegates it because persons and institutions. private tions *6 Act, may delegate implemen- Authority the the the Under agencies and governmental programs loan tation re- institutions, Authority retains ultimate but the financial through regulation and con- programs sponsibility for the lending A institution agreement with the lenders. tractual prescribed not in the Authority to someone cannot loan funds class, unworthy All must be made credit risk. loans nor to an on pay prinсipal and interest an rate sufficient to at interest The Au- Authority’s the administrative costs. bonds and the institution, that each thority, lending must determine not the reasonably to the borrower on is not otherwise available loan Authority determines whether and on equivalent terms. The assumed, may to include a due- terms a loan be whether what clause, securing the loan. Each loan the method of on-sale and short, Authority’s regulations. In comply must with all the management the final control over the maintains delegating while the ministerial duties programs, its loan organiza- pоssess necessary the lending for which institutions experience. and tion delegation of administrative and
We have held that not unconstitutional. ministerial duties is Clarke v. Authority, al., 427, 181 et S. Service S. C. C. Public City Hill, al., Green, Rock et (1935); E. 481 et al. v. 149S. C. S. legislature 234, 147 (1929). the in this instance E. 346 Since S. duties, is delegated only not viоlative of ministerial III, 1 of South Carolina Constitution. § Article the Affirmed. A.A.J., J., Moore,
Harwell, concur. Paul M. and J., J., dissent. Gregory, Lewis, C. (dissenting): Justice
Lewis, Chief majority opinion reaches conclusion that Act No. Assembly the 1981 179 of Acts of the does not offend General III, 17, Article Section I the South Carolina Constitution. and, disagree therefore, dissent. III, 17, states:
Article Section of the Constitution subject. 17. Section One
Every having Act or resolution the force of law shall subject, expressed relate to but one and that shall be in the title. Company Colonial and Accident Insurance v. South Life Commission, 129, 103
Carolina Tax 233 S. C. S. E. purpose court referred to the of Article Section 17 as follows: purpose prevent
Its is to Assembly General from being passage misled into the containing of bills provi- titles, sions not apprise indicated their and to people subjеct of proposed legislation give and thus opportunity them be they heard if so desire. Accord- ingly, while is to great liberality it be with construed so as not to embarrass legislation, or obstruct needed liber- ality of construction should not be extended to such a *7 point to prоvisions as foster the which its abuses are designed prevent. to
Specifically majority the 179, finds of that Section 15 Act establishing the South Carolina Development State Farm germane general is subject Act, to the of the entire subject purporting by that to be the bonds issuance of various government entities. trial majority
The court and the of this Court overlook the sufficiency issue basic of the of the of Act No. 179under title III, opinion provides 17. The majority Article Section the full title of the Act as a footnote. pages covers two full in title . printed following the Acts of 1981. the language is sole used in the launch government entity title to this new into the government borrowing: field of limitless by adding amend the 1976 Chapter To Code to Title 46 Family The South Development Carolina State Farm Authority Act. subject gives the title nor the any
Neither of Act 179 indica- legislаtors public powers tion or the issue broad by Development Authority. way bonds the Farm There is no foregoing provision fairly that the short in title the could have apprised legislators general public or the that Act con- in an revenue bonds agency to issue authority for a new
tained unlimited amount. hardly undertaking, it can be merits of this
Whatever the public are even legislature or the said that members The effect by the title of the Act. dimly apprised of its nature the is, my opinion, to read out of majority the view by Arti- imposed very important restraints Constitution 17 of thе Constitution. cle Section holding Act appeal, that the the order under I would reverse is unconstitutional. J., concurs.
Gregory, LINDBERG, Respondent. Anne of Deborah the Matter
(307 (2d) 602) E.S.
ORDER 31, 1983. Aug. her res- Lindberg tendered
Respondent Deborah Anne has read- apply for stipulation that she will never ignation, with mission, Board of Commissioners on Grievances to the Discipline. by the stipulation, reviewed resignation, with was on Board of Commissioners
Executive Committee recom- Discipline, and the Commission Grievances and accepted resignation be as tendered. mended that resignation of THEREFORE, IS, ORDERED that IT fоrthwith, Lindberg accepted. shall Anne be She Deborah license Clerk this Court her days, deliver to the within five *8 irrevocably State, and her name shall be practice law this attorneys. roll of stricken from the Opinions of this Court. published with the Order be Let this Notes For The Defeasance Of So As To Provide Title Amended, Relating To Obligations; To Amend Act 761 Of As Or Other Committee, Additional To Provide For Four Review So As The Joint Bond Projects Improvement Members; Capital To Be Priorities For To Provide For Adding By To By Code Bonds. To Amend The 1976 The Issuance Of Funded Development 1,6 Family 1,7, Chapter Farm State The South Carolina Title Competitive 11-35-3020,Relating Act; To Amend Section And To Procedures, Using Agency’s Invita- Bidding A So As To Provide That Sealed Any Requirement Shall Bidder Or Offeror A That Shall Include tion For Bids Each Of The Place Of Business And Location Of The Name Set Forth Contractor To The Prime Will Perform Work Or Service Who Subcontractor Exceeding Certain InWork Amounts Will Fabricate And Install And Who Percentages added). (Emphasis Bid.” The Contractor’s Total Of