Tbe only question raised by tbe pleadings and judgment and tbe plaintiffs’ exception and assignment of error is tbe constitutionality of tbe statutes authorizing tbe issue of tbe bonds. Tbe plaintiffs contend tbat said acts are in contravention of Art. VII, sec. 7, of tbe Constitution of tbis State, in tbat tbe Legislature thereby authorizes tbe issuance of tbe bonds of tbe county for other than a necessary expense without a vote of tbe qualified voters. They base tbis contention upon tbe ground tbat tbe building of a bridge and the approaches thereto over a river forming tbe State line,, and tbe payment possibly for more than tbat part of tbe bridge and approaches as lie within tbe county, is not a necessary expense of said county. While tbis exact question has not been before tbe Court it is decided in principle in Martin County v. Trust Co., 178 N. C., 26. In tbat ease we held constitutional a statute authorizing tbe issuance of bonds by two adjoining counties to build a bridge and approaches over a stream dividing tbe counties and through five miles of swamp on tbe Bertie side, tbe river lying also wholly in Bertie, while on tbe Martin County side there was only tbe approaches of probably one-fourth of a mile. Tbe Court held constitutional tbat act though $150,000 was to be procured on bonds issued by Martin County and only $50,000 by Bertie. Tbe Court in tbat case fully considered tbe subject and laid down three propositions:

1. Tbe Legislature may authorize adjoining counties to issue bonds in certain proportions for tbe building of a bridge across a dividing stream, and tbe validity of tbe bonds, being for a necessary county expense, does not require tbe issuance to be approved by a vote of'the people.

2. Tbe proportion which a county may contribute to tbe building of a bridge and tbe approaches thereto, over a stream between it and an adjoining county, is a question for tbe Legislature to determine, and is not reviewable by tbe courts.

3. Tbe construction and maintenance of roads and bridges is a necessary expense which tbe Legislature may cast upon tbe State at large or upon tbe territory specially and immediately benefited, though tbe work may not be wholly within tbe territory or tbe actual structure not in exact proportion to tbe contribution of each county, as tbe benefit to be derived by each must be considered.

Tbat case settled tbat tbe proportionate part of tbe expense which should be borne by each of tbe counties was a legislative and not a judicial question, and tbat tbe approaches to tbe bridge were a necessary and therefore an integral part of tbe cost of constructing tbe same.

The principle involved and decided in Martin Co. v. Trust Co., supra, we think applies to tbis case. We see no ground to differentiate between tbe two cases because in tbis instance tbe dividing stream is a State *423 line. Tbe bridge being a necessary expense, tbe proportionate cost' should be adjusted witb a view to tbe proportionate benefit received by tbe county of Mecklenburg, wbicb is prima facie, in proportion to population, unless (as authorized by tbe statute) tbe county commissioners agree witb tbe authorities of tbe other county upon a different basis.

Tbe Legislature of this State could agree witb tbe Legislature of an adjoining State to unite in constructing and maintaining a bridge over a stream where it is a State line. Such public bridge can be built only by joint authority of tbe two States, and instead of creating a special commission, tbe General Assembly has seen fit by a general statute (under Cons.-, Art. II, sec. 29) to authorize tbe commissioners of any county lying on such stream to take proper action, tbe cost to be borne by tbe county whose public roads will cross tbe stream, and to adjust its contribution witb tbe authorities of tbe other county, whether it lies in this State or in another State.

Tbe judgment overruling tbe demurrer is

Affirmed.