The City of Greensboro, and the members of its City Council, and the Greensboro War Memorial Fund Commission, and its members, and Herman Amasa Smith, for and on behalf of himself and in the representative capacities indicated above, through their pleadings, asked the court to construe Ch. 436, Session Laws of 1945, entitled "An Act To Authorize City of Greensboro To Establish A War Memorial Fund And A War Memorial Fund Commission; To Acquire And Hold Property Incidental To The Construction of A War Memorial," hereinafter called the Act, and to enter a declaratory judgment defining their respective duties thereunder. This cause was here at Fall Term 1953, Greensboro v. Smith, 239 N.C. 138, 79 S.E.2d 486, upon appeal by (original) defendant Smith. The error, for which the cause was remanded, was that the Commission, then attempting to exercise authority, was an illegally constituted body. The proceedings of such Commission being invalid, consideration of the questions posed relating to the War Memorial was deferred until the Commission was appointed and acted as a legally constituted body.

" The Court said in Greensboro v. Smith, 241 N.C. 363, 85 S.E.2d 292: "The acquisition, establishment and operation of an auditorium, G.S. 160-283, Adams v. Durham, 189 N.C. 232, 126 S.E. 611, and of playground and recreation centers, G.S. 160-155 et seq., Purser v. Ledbetter, 227 N.C. 1, 40 S.E.2d 702; Greensboro v. Smith, 239 N.C. 138, 79 S.E.2d 486, are not `necessary expenses' within the meaning of Art. VII, sec. 7, of the Constitution of North Carolina, for which a municipal corporation may borrow money or levy and collect taxes, without an approving vote of the people, but are public purposes for which a municipal corporation may appropriate available surplus funds not derived from taxes or a pledge of its credit. Brumley v. Baxter, 225 N.C. 691, 36 S.E.2d 281.

On the other hand, parks, playgrounds and recreation centers are not necessary municipal expenses within the meaning of the above-cited section of our Constitution; however, funds spent for such projects are for a public purpose. Horton v. Redevelopment Commission, supra; Greensboro v. Smith, 241 N.C. 363, 85 S.E.2d 292; s.c., 239 N.C. 138, 79 S.E.2d 486; Purser v. Ledbetter, 227 N.C. 1, 40 S.E.2d 702 (which case overrules Atkins v. Durham, 210 N.C. 295, 186 S.E. 330); Brumley v. Baxter, 225 N.C. 691, 36 S.E.2d 281, 162 A.L.R. 930; Twining v. Wilmington, 214 N.C. 655, 200 S.E. 416. While such projects are for a public purpose, taxes may not be levied therefor without a vote of the people.

within the purview of Article VII, section 7, of the State Constitution have been the following: Repairing, maintaining and paving public streets, Jones v. New Bern, 152 N.C. 64, 67 S.E. 173; providing a city with a waterworks plant, a sewerage system, and for grading and paving its streets, Greensboro v. Scott, 138 N.C. 181, 50 S.E. 589; Bradshaw v. High Point, 151 N.C. 517, 66 S.E. 601; a market house, Swinson v. Mount Olive, 147 N.C. 611, 61 S.E. 569; a municipal building, Hightower v. Raleigh, 150 N.C. 569, 65 S.E. 279; a municipal power plant, Williamson v. High Point, 213 N.C. 96, 195 S.E. 90; special training of a policeman, Green v. Kitchin, supra. For a list of many more cases to the same effect see G.S. Vol. 4A, pp. 105-106 of an annotation to Article VII, section 7, of the State Constitution; and also 18 N.C. L.R. p. 93 et seq. The following have been held not as "necessary expenses" within the purview of Article VII, section 7, of the State Constitution: a swimming pool, Greensboro v. Smith. 239 N.C. 138, 79 S.E.2d 486; municipal parks and recreational facilities, Purser v. Ledbetter, 227 N.C. 1, 40 S.E.2d 702; supported and maintenance of James Walker Memorial Hospital, Board of Managers v. Wilmington, 237 N.C. 179, 74 S.E.2d 749; a hospital, Sessions v. Columbus County, 214 N.C. 634, 200 S.E. 418; Palmer v. Haywood County, 212 N.C. 284, 193 S.E. 668; Burleson v. Board of Aldermen, 200 N.C. 30, 156 S.E. 241; Nash v. Monroe, 198 N.C. 306 151 S.E. 634; a public library, Westbrook v. Southern Pines, 215 N.C. 20, 1 S.E.2d 95; Jamison v. Charlotte, 239 N.C. 682, 80 S.E.2d 904; an airport, Airport Authority v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 1, 36 S.E.2d 803; a chamber of commerce, Ketchie v. Hedrick, supra; a drill tower for firemen, Wilson v. Charlotte, 206 N.C. 856, 175 S.E. 306. See also, Wilson v. High Point supra.

As said in Waldrop v. Hodges, 230 N.C. 370, 53 S.E.2d 263: "The law is founded on the principle of fair play, and fair play demands that defendants keep faith with the electors of the district." Lewis v. Beaufort County, 249 N.C. 628, 107 S.E.2d 77; Greensboro v. Smith, 239 N.C. 138, 79 S.E.2d 486; Parker v. Anson County, 237 N.C. 78, 74 S.E.2d 338; Rider v. Lenoir County, 236 N.C. 620, 73 S.E.2d 913; McCracken v. R.R., 168 N.C. 62, 84 S.E. 30. The Legislature has authorized counties to issue bonds for the purpose of "Funding or refunding of valid indebtedness if such indebtedness be payable at the time of the passage of the order authorizing the bonds or be payable within one year thereafter, or, although payable more than one year thereafter, is to be cancelled prior to its maturity and simultaneously with the issuance of the funding or refunding bonds . . ."

We are advertent to G.S. 160-156, which is a declaration of State Public Policy as to adequate recreational programs and facilities, and to G.S. 160-163 entitled Petition for establishment of system and levy of tax. We are also advertent to Purser v. Ledbetter, 227 N.C. 1, 40 S.E.2d 702; Greensboro v. Smith, 239 N.C. 138, 79 S.E.2d 486; Greensboro v. Smith, 241 N.C. 363, 85 S.E.2d 292; Lovin v. Hamlet, supra; Atkins v. Durham, 210 N.C. 295, 186 S.E. 330. We are also advertent to James v. Charlotte, 183 N.C. 630, 112 S.E. 423, where it was held that the city charging the actual expense of removing garbage did not change its act from a governmental function to a proprietary function.

The power of the Legislature to provide for the restoration is beyond question. Greensboro v. Smith, 239 N.C. 138, 79 S.E.2d 486; Jamison v. Charlotte, 239 N.C. 423, 79 S.E.2d 797. This cause came to the Superior Court and from that court here upon appeal from a determination of the Utilities Commission. The determination is presumed to be valid and is not to be disturbed unless it is made to appear that it is clearly unreasonable and unjust.

" The Court gives a summary of those expenses classified as "not necessary". "The following have been held not as `necessary expenses' within the purview of Article VII, section 7, of the State Constitution: a swimming pool, Greensboro v. Smith, 239 N.C. 138, 79 S.E.2d 486; municipal parks and recreational facilities, Purser v. Ledbetter, 227 N.C. 1, 40 S.E.2d 702, support and maintenance of James Walker Memorial Hospital, Board of Managers v. Wilmington, 237 N.C. 179, 74 S.E.2d 749; a hospital, Sessions v. Columbus County, 214 N.C. 634, 200 S.E. 418; Palmer v. Haywood County, 212 N.C. 284, 193 S.E. 668; Burleson v. Board of Aldermen, 200 N.C. 30, 156 S.E. 241; Nash v. Monroe, 198 N.C. 306, 151 S.E. 634, a public library, Westbrook v. Southern Pines, 215 N.C. 20, 1 S.E.2d 95; Jamison v. Charlotte, 239 N.C. 682, 80 S.E.2d 904; an airport, Airport Authority v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 1, 36 S.E.2d 803, a chamber of commerce, Ketchie v. Hedrick, supra; a drill tower for firemen, Wilson v. Charlotte, 206 N.C. 856, 175 S.E. 306." In Vance County v. Royster, supra, the Supreme Court in an opinion by Lake, J., held that the expenditures of tax money, and the contracting of a debt by a county for the purposes of maintaining a county airport was not a "necessary