Statutory provisions as to the power of a public corporation to borrow money and the methods by which it may borrow are at present in most states very full and ample.1 As has been indicated in the preceding section, much of the discussion as to the implied power of a public corporation to borrow turns on the effect of the statutes on that subject.2 Bonds issued after a repeal of the law under which they were issued,3 or under an unconstitutional law,4 are void. A law allowing a specified township to issue bonds is not of general nature and hence is constitutional, even if not uniform, under a constitutional provision requiring laws of a general nature to be uniform.5 A statute authorizing a town to vote bonds to aid a railroad, without formally amending its charter,6 or special authority to borrow without formally amending a general statute limiting such power,7 confers such authority. A limited power of borrowing excludes implied power.8 Statutes on the subject of issuing bonds should be construed together if possible as in pari materia even if passed at different times.9 If statutes passed at different times cannot be reconciled, the later controls. Thus a general law may be superseded by a charter.10 So a grant of general power to borrow money and issue bonds for municipal purposes is not restricted by a prior grant for special purposes.11

6 Morris v. Taylor, 31 Or. 62; 49 Pac. 660 (citing Quincy v. Warfield, 25 111. 317; 79 Am. Dee. 330; Galena v. Corwith, 48 111. 423; 95 Am. Dec. 557; Solon v. Bank, 114 N. Y. 122; 21 N. E. 168; Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, 41 Pa. St. 278; Rogan v. Watertown, 30 Wis. 259).

7 Pierre v. Dunscomb, 106 Fed. 611; 45 C. C. A. 499.

8 Coquard v. Oquawka, 192 111. 355; 61 N. E. 660.

9 Lake County v. Graham, 130 U. S. 674; Wilkes Co. v. Call, 123 N. C. 308; 44 L. R. A. 252; 31 S. E. 481.

10 Los Angeles v. Teed, 112 Cal. 319; 44 Pac. 580.

11 Dodge v. Memphis, 51 Fed. 165.

12 Goodwin v. East Hartford, 70 Conn. 18; 38 Atl. 876; State ex rel.

Slingerland v. Newark, 54 N. J. L.

62; 23 Atl. 129.

13 Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 175; Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 327; Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 282; Humboldt Township v. Long,

92 U. S. 642; Roberts v. Bolles, 101

U. S. 119; Wilson County v. Bank,

103 U. S. 770; Ottawa v. Bank, 105

U. S. 342; Ackley School District v. Hall, 113 U. S. 135; Klamath Falls v. Sachs, 35 Or. 325; 76 Am.

St. Rep. 501; 57 Pac. 329.

14 Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 282; Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683; Stewart v. Lansing. 104 U. S. 505; Thompson v. Perrine, 106 U. S. 589.

15 Uncas National Bank V. Superior, 115 Wis. 340; 91 N. W. 1004.

16 State v. Topeka, - Kan. -; 74 Pac. 647.

1 Ellinwood v. Reedsburg, 91 Wis. 131; 64 N. W. 885.

2 Commonwealth v. Williamstown, 156 Mass. 70; 30 N. E. 472.

3 Lehman v. San Diego, 73 Fed. 105.

4 Slocomb v. Fayetteville, 125 N. C. 362; 34 S. E. 436.

5 Battleboro Savings Bank v. Hardy Township, 98 Fed. 524 (citing Cass v. Dillon, 2 O. S. 607; State v. Judges, 21 O. S. 1; State v. Covington, 29 O. S. 102; McGill v. State,

34 O. S. 228; State v. Hoffman, 35 O. S. 435; State v. Commissioners,

35 O. S. 458; State v. Board, 38 O. S. 3; State v. Powers, 38 O. S. 54; Hart v. Murray, 48 O. S. 605; 29 N. E. 576; State v. Kendle. 52 O. S. 346; 39 N. E. 947; Ex parte Falk, 42 O. S. 638; State v. Winch, 45 O. S. 663; 18 N. E. 380; State v. Ellet, 47 O. S. 90; 21 Am. St. Rep. 772; 23 N. E. 931; Commissioners v. Rosche, 50 O. S. 103; 40 Am. St. Rep. 653; 19 L. R. A. 584; 33 N. E. 408; Loeb v. Trustees, 91 Fed. 37. Disapproving Hixson v. Burson, 54 O. S. 470; 43 N. E. 1000; State v. Davis, 55 O. S. 15; 44 N. E. 511).

6 Glenn v. Wray, 126 N. C. 730; 36 S. E. 167.

7 Peabody v. Waterworks, 20 R. I. 176; 37 Atl. 807.

8 Hughson v. Crane, 115 Cal. 404;

47 Pac. 120. Contra, Galena v. Cor-with, 48 111. 423; 95 Am. Dec. 557.

9 Roberts v. Taft, 109 Fed. 825;

48 C. C. A. 681.

10 McHugh v. San Francisco, 132 Cal. 381; 64 Pac. 570.

11 Pierre v. Dunscomb, 106 Fed. 611; 45 C. C. A. 499.

Power to incur indebtedness for municipal improvements is not limited by a grant of power in another section of the statute to make specific kinds of improvements.12 Clerical errors and grammatical inaccuracies are to be disregarded if the meaning of the statute is clear. Thus a statute authorizing bonds if "two thirds of the qualified electors voting an assent" means if two thirds of the qualified electors voting, assent.13 Restrictions as to requiring bond in case the cost of constructing a street is assessed upon abutting property owners have no application to contracts for constructing a sidewalk.14 Power to issue bonds with interest coupons payable at a given place is not power to issue bonds with interest coupons payable else-where.15 Power to refund "bonded indebtedness actually existing" is power to include unpaid interest coupons in the face of the new bonds.16