434 S.E.2d 420 (1993) 189 W.Va. 748

William S.E. WINKLER and Diane Hickle, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees,
v.
STATE of West Virginia SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY, and United National Bank, a National Banking Association, as Trustee Under the Certain Trust Indenture by and Between the School Building Authority of West Virginia, A Public Body Corporate and United National Bank, as Trustee, Dated January 1, 1990, Securing Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds Series 1990a and Subsequent Series, as Amended and Supplemented, Defendants Below,
State of West Virginia School Building Authority, Appellant.
William S.E. WINKLER and Diane Hickle, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees,
v.
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY, and United National Bank, a National Banking Association, as Trustee Under the Certain Trust Indenture by and Between the School Building Authority of West Virginia, A Public Body Corporate and United National Bank, as Trustee, Dated January 1, 1990, Securing Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds Series 1990a and Subsequent Series, as Amended and Supplemented, Defendants Below,
United National Bank, a National Banking Association, as Trustee, Appellant.

Nos. 21829, 21830.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted July 20, 1993. Decided July 22, 1993.

*423 James B. Lees, Jr., Hunt, Lees, Farrell & Kessler, Charleston, for plaintiffs.

Harry M. Rubenstein, Kay, Casto, Chaney, Love & Wise, Morgantown, John O. Kizer, Kay, Casto, Chaney, Love & Wise, Charleston, for amicus curiae Board of Educ. of the Counties of Barbour, Doddridge, Gilmer, Harrison, Lewis, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Randolph, Taylor, Tucker and Upshur.

Michael R. Crane, Alison E. Patient, M.E. Mowery, Charleston, for amicus curiae West Virginia Legislature.

Howard E. Seufer, Jr., Roger D. Hunter, Claudia W. Bentley, Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love, Martinsburg, for amicus curiae Boards of Educ. of the Counties of Berkeley, Boone, Braxton, Calhoun, Fayette, Grant, Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Logan, McDowell, Mineral, Ohio, Pleasants, Raleigh, Ritchie, Roane, Wetzel, Wirt, Wood and Wyoming.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Atty. Gen., L. Eugene Dickinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for State of West Virginia School Bldg. Authority.

James K. Brown, Anthony J. Majestro, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, Cynthia A. Majestro, Charleston, for United National Bank.

David L. Campbell, Charleston, for amicus curiae Honorable Gaston Caperton, Governor of the State of W.Va.

Stuart Calwell, Jacqueline A. Hallinan, Calwell & McCormick, Charleston, for amicus curiae State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council.

Michael D. Thompson, Pros. Atty., of Jefferson County, Charles Town, amicus curiae. *421

*422 MILLER, Justice:

The question that we are asked to decide on this appeal is whether the Circuit Court of Kanawha County was in error when it held in its July 9, 1993 order that the Capital Improvement and Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 1993, issued by the appellant, State of West Virginia School Building Authority (SBA) in the amount of $338,145,000, were invalid as violating Sections 4 and 6 of Article X of the Constitution of West Virginia.^[1] These constitutional provisions restrict the ability of the State to issue bonds that draw upon the State's general revenue funds.

I.

The appellants are the SBA and the United National Bank (Bank). The Bank is the Trustee under a certain Trust Indenture between it and the SBA dated January 1, 1990, which is part of the bond financing *424 arrangements. The appellees are two citizens and taxpayers who sought a declaratory judgment with attendant injunctive relief against the SBA on June 16, 1993, in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.^[2] Their claim was that the 1993 Series revenue bonds about to be issued pursuant to W.Va.Code, 18-9D-1, et seq., were unconstitutional because issuance of the bonds violated the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of Article X of the West Virginia Constitution prohibiting state debt.

On June 21, 1993, the circuit court granted the Bank the right to intervene in this case. After several hearings were held, the circuit court, by order entered July 9, 1993, held that issuance of the bonds was unconstitutional, and therefore enjoined the SBA from issuing the bonds. The basis for the circuit court's holding was that the bonds commit the State Legislature to fund the bonds' retirement and that this commitment constitutes an impermissible debt against the State. We granted this appeal on July 13, 1993, on an expedited basis because of the urgent need for a decision on the issues involved in this case.^[3] A full hearing was held on July 20, 1993.

There is no question that the challenged bonds were authorized by the SBA under the provisions of W.Va.Code, 18-9D-1, et seq. The general outline of that article, with regard to the bond arrangement, is as follows. Under Section 4, the SBA may issue revenue bonds under the guidelines set out in that section. Pursuant to Section 6, a building capital improvement fund is "created in the state treasury." This same section authorizes the SBA to pledge this fund to liquidate the revenue bonds. Section 8 provides further directions as to the issuance of the bonds, the trust indenture agreement, and the pledge of funds to liquidate the bonds. Section 12 spells out in more detail the trust agreement for the benefit of the bondholders. Section 13 mandates that a sinking fund be created in the State Treasurer's office in order to liquidate the bonds. Finally, under Section 14, this statement is made:

"No provisions of this article shall be construed to authorize the school building authority at any time or in any manner to pledge the credit or taxing power of the state, nor shall any of the obligations or debts created by the school building authority under the authority herein granted be deemed to be obligations of the state."

It is Section 14, together with the disclaimer on the face of the bonds and language in the trust agreement, that causes the appellants to claim that the bonds are neither legal obligations of the State nor of the SBA, and therefore, that the bonds do not constitute a debt obligation of the State under Sections 4 and 6 of Article X of the West Virginia Constitution. The relevant proposed bond language is as follows:

"The Series 1993 Bonds are limited obligations of the Authority payable solely from the Trust Estate pledged under the Indenture. The Authority may not at any time or in any manner pledge the credit or taxing power of the State, nor shall any of the obligations or debts created by the Authority under the Indenture be deemed to be obligations of the State.

"The Series 1993 Bonds are being issued on a parity with the lien of certain outstanding bonds of the Authority on amounts on deposit in the Revenue Fund. All Bonds issued under the Indenture are *425 secured by a pledge of moneys appropriated by the West Virginia State Legislature and transferred to United National Bank, as the trustee, for deposit in the Revenue Fund established under the Indenture. AMOUNTS AVAILABLE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUSTEE FOR DEPOSIT IN THE REVENUE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS IN AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO PAY DEBT SERVICE ON THE BONDS."^[4]

The applicable language in the trust agreement relied upon by the appellants is:

"All Bonds issued under the Indenture, including the Series 1993 Bonds, are secured by a pledge of Revenues. `Revenues' means (i) any moneys appropriated by the State Legislature, deposited in the Building Fund and transferred to the Trustee in conformance with the Constitution and laws of the state and (ii) any other moneys, income or property pledged by the Authority to the payment of Bonds.

"Moneys appropriated by the Legislature and transferred to the Trustee are currently the sole source of Revenues. AMOUNTS AVAILABLE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUSTEE ARE SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS IN AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO PAY DEBT SERVICE ON THE BONDS."^[5]

Before addressing the merits of the particular bond issue in this case, it is useful to review some of our prior cases analyzing Sections 4 and 6 of Article X of the West Virginia Constitution.

II.

A.

We wish to say at the outset that we are fully aware of the gravity of the bond issue in this case, particularly since it relates to our public educational system. This Court has not been insensitive to the needs of our school system. Almost fifteen years ago in Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979), we spoke forcefully to these needs, stating that the Thorough and Efficient Education Clause in Section 1 of Article XII of the West Virginia Constitution was not an empty vessel.^[6] We mandated in Pauley that our entire educational system be closely scrutinized and appointed a special judge to oversee this review.^[7]

Pauley did not address the question of the issuance of bonds to fund school building construction and capital improvements. The appellees appear to suggest that the Thorough and Efficient Education Clause can validate revenue bonds that are authorized by the Legislature, but are found to be unconstitutional under Sections 4 and 6 of Article X of our Constitution. We cannot agree with such an assertion because the generality of the Thorough and Efficient Education Clause in Section 1 *426 of Article XII^[8] of our Constitution cannot override the more specific provisions on state debt limitation contained in Sections 4 and 6 of Article X. We pointed out in State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 157 W.Va. 100, 108, 207 S.E.2d 421, 427 (1973), that: "Questions of constitutional construction are in the main governed by the same general rules as those applied in statutory construction." (Citation omitted). See also State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 180 W.Va. 457, 461-62, 377 S.E.2d 139, 143 (1988).

We have frequently utilized the rule of statutory construction set out in Syllabus Point 1 of UMWA by Trumka v. Kingdon, 174 W.Va. 330, 325 S.E.2d 120 (1984):

"The general rule of statutory construction requires that a specific statute be given precedence over a general statute relating to the same subject matter where the two cannot be reconciled."

Finally, we acknowledge that when we are called upon to determine the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, we are guided by various restraints that we have imposed upon our judicial powers, as we outlined in Syllabus Point 4 of Tony P. Sellitti Construction Co. v. Caryl, 185 W.Va. 584, 408 S.E.2d 336 (1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 969, 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992):

"`"In considering the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, courts must exercise due restraint, in recognition of the principle of the separation of powers in government among the judicial, legislative and executive branches. [W.Va. Const. art. V, § 1.] Every reasonable construction must be resorted to by the courts in order to sustain constitutionality, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment in question. Courts are not concerned with questions relating to legislative policy. The general powers of the legislature, within constitutional limits, are almost plenary. In considering the constitutionality of an act of the legislature, the negation of legislative power must appear beyond reasonable doubt." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Appalachian Power Co. v. Gainer, 149 W.Va. 740, 143 S.E.2d 351 (1965).' Syl. pt. 2, West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System v. Dodd, 183 W.Va. 544, 396 S.E.2d 725 (1990)."

B.

We begin our legal discussion regarding the validity of these school revenue bonds by noting that there is a category of bonds that override the specific limitations contained in Sections 4 and 6 of Article X. They are bonds that the Legislature issues after following the procedures contained in Section 2 of Article XIV of our Constitution relating to constitutional amendments.^[9] Under the amendment procedure, a majority of qualified voters voting on the issue must approve the issuance of the bonds.^[10]

*427 Bonds issued pursuant to a constitutional amendment override the more general bond limit restrictions because they were approved by the voters for the specific purposes contained in the amendment. Thus, under our traditional rules of constitutional construction, these bonds supersede the general bond limitations. See State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, supra; State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, supra. The bonds in this case do not fall into the category of bonds approved by constitutional amendment.^[11]

C.

The two constitutional provisions at issue in this case, Sections 4 and 6 of Article X, have been interpreted by this Court to serve the common purpose of restricting the Legislature's ability to create long-term debt.^[12] These provisions are often cited together in the same case; however, each provision serves a separate purpose. The restrictions contained in Section 4 of Article X deal with the creation of long-term debt by the State or its agencies through revenue bonds or other similar obligations by way of legislative enactments. See State ex rel. Board of Governors of West Virginia University v. O'Brien, 142 W.Va. 88, 97, 94 S.E.2d 446, 451 (1956). Moreover, in State ex rel. County Court of Marion County v. Demus, 148 W.Va. 398, 409, 135 S.E.2d 352, 359 (1964), we compared the purpose of Section 6 of Article X with Section 4, noting: "Section 4 of Article X of the Constitution imposes upon the state limitations with respect to indebtedness similar to those imposed upon counties and cities by Article X, Section 6 of the Constitution[.]" Indeed, the plain language of Section 6 is designed to restrict the State from granting credit to subordinate political subdivisions such as municipalities and counties, as well as to forbid the State from granting credit or assuming liabilities for debts of private persons or other entities.^[13]

Earlier, in Bates v. State Bridge Commission, 109 W.Va. 186, 188, 153 S.E. 305, 306-07 (1930), in alluding to the purpose of Section 4 of Article X, we spoke about "the experience of the mother state *428 with debts contracted by her,"^[14] of which the framers of our 1872 Constitution were aware and therefore "provided that this state should not contract indebtedness, except in specified instances[.]" 109 W.Va. at 189, 153 S.E. at 307. Moreover, in State ex rel. West Virginia Housing Development Fund v. Waterhouse, 158 W.Va. 196, 208-09, 212 S.E.2d 724, 731 (1974), the purpose of Section 6 of Article X was given the following summary: "This Court expressly noted that the `purpose of Section 6 of Article X was to guard against the granting of the credit of the State in aid of any county, city, township, corporation or person....'." Quoting State ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 134 W.Va. 278, 289, 58 S.E.2d 766, 773 (1950), rev'd on other grounds, 341 U.S. 22, 71 S.Ct. 557, 95 L.Ed. 713 (1951).

Thus, we believe our cases make clear the substantive distinction between the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of Article X of our Constitution. In this case, we deal only with Section 4. In State ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, supra, in regard to Section 4 of Article X, we stated in Syllabus Point 5:

"Under Section 4, Article X, of the Constitution of this State, the Legislature is without power to create an obligation to appropriate funds, for a purpose not mentioned in said section, by future Legislatures. Such legislation, if otherwise valid, would be void under said section, as creating a debt inhibited thereby."

Although the wording of Syllabus Point 5 of State ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, supra, is somewhat awkward, it seems clear that the Court did not literally mean that any contract entered into by a state agency that extended over more than one year was constitutionally infirm. Dyer recognized that by creating state agencies, the Legislature was obligating itself, in a constitutionally permissible manner, to pay funds necessary for those agencies' operational expenses from future general revenue funds:

"Ordinarily, the creation of a State board or commission which requires an appropriation of public funds to carry out its purposes is not treated as the creation of a debt, although its generally contemplated continuation from year to year, and for an indefinite period, must necessarily involve future appropriations. Practically all agencies created by the Legislature require appropriations from time to time, and that was necessarily contemplated at the time they were created." 134 W.Va. at 290, 58 S.E.2d at 773.

Much of this same type of reasoning also was recognized in State ex rel. Hall v. Taylor, 154 W.Va. 659, 672, 178 S.E.2d 48, 56 (1971), where we said: "[A]dmittedly it is contemplated by the statute that the rent will be paid from general revenue funds to be appropriated by the Legislature to the various agencies and departments of the state government from year to year." Moreover, in State ex rel. Board of Governors v. Sims, 133 W.Va. 239, 244, 55 S.E.2d 505, 508 (1949), we specifically recognized that the Legislature's creation of a pension system, which required periodic funding from general revenues, did not constitute "the creation of a debt inhibited by Section 4 of Article X of the Constitution."

It is the fact that state agencies have recurring needs for services, such as rental space and utility services, that form the basis for our cases approving the State's lease-financing arrangements. In such a situation, the lease payments are used to retire revenue bonds that were issued to construct the building. See State ex rel. State Bldg. Comm'n v. Moore, 155 W.Va. 212, 184 S.E.2d 94 (1971). The foregoing *429 rationale formed the basis for our approval of the energy supply contract entered into by the West Virginia University in State ex rel. West Virginia Resource Recovery-Solid Waste Disposal Authority v. Gill, 174 W.Va. 109, 323 S.E.2d 590 (1984), even though the contract was not a lease. We stated in Syllabus Point 1 of Gill: "Bonds of a state or political subdivision payable solely out of revenue derived from a utility of a public nature acquired by the money derived from the bonds do not create debts within the constitutional inhibition against the contraction of public debt."

Moreover, the foregoing rationale also was behind our approval of the issuance of industrial and commercial revenue bonds under W.Va.Code, 13-2C-1. Under this legislation, a county acquires land and contracts with a private corporation to lease the land for a rental sufficient to retire the bonds that are issued by the county to secure the funds to build the facility. See, e.g., State ex rel. Ohio County Comm'n v. Samol, 165 W.Va. 714, 275 S.E.2d 2 (1980); State ex rel. County Court of Marion County v. Demus, supra. All these various types of lease arrangements have been generally accepted elsewhere as valid against a claim of constitutional debt infirmity.^[15]

In addition, we have given our approval to the payment of revenue bonds that are liquidated out of a special fund. This concept is related to the lease-financing arrangement, but differs because the special fund is ordinarily a tax or a fee generated from the facility itself, such as tolls for the use of a bridge or road, or parking-garage fees. In State ex rel. Hall v. Taylor, 154 W.Va. at 672, 178 S.E.2d at 56, we stated the general basis for the special fund concept:

"It is difficult to state the `separate fund doctrine' precisely. Its application varies somewhat among appellate courts of various states. It is applied uniformly in relation to projects or facilities which are self-liquidating, such as the toll bridge cases. Some courts hold that the doctrine applies in any case of a fund created by a special excise tax as distinguished from property taxes."

The special fund doctrine provided the basis for both our approval of the State Road Commission's special fund to generate revenues to construct the building for the Department of Highways in State ex rel. Building Commission v. Moore, supra, and the use of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission's profits in the same case to fund the construction of its warehouse. The same rationale supports our toll-bridge cases^[16] and our cases dealing with the construction of student dormitories at West Virginia University out of special student fees.^[17] The special fund doctrine is generally recognized in other jurisdictions as not being violative of constitutional debt limitations.^[18]

*430 The appellants argue that both the special fund doctrine and the service contract or lease agreement concept still involve funds that ultimately can be said to come from potential general revenue sources. Thus, they assert that these principles, which we have acknowledged to be acceptable as not violating Section 4 of Article X, are really no different than the more direct payments from general revenue funds used in this case.

We disagree because appellants overlook several significant differences. First, the special fund doctrine is based on the fact that a specific source of revenue is required to be identified and committed to the repayment of the bonds beyond mere annual appropriations from the general revenue fund. Second, by identifying and dedicating this specific source of funds, the process automatically limits the total value of bonds that can be used. The Legislature will have to quantify initially the amount it is willing to commit in order to avail itself of the special fund doctrine.

Much the same process occurs in the case of a service contract or lease arrangement. There, the revenue source is the rental payments or the amounts paid under the service contract. These amounts are ultimately controlled by the cost of the building, which determines the total value of bonds to be issued. The cost of the proposed building, in turn, will be governed by economic and market considerations which limit the cost of the project and the total value of bonds to be issued.

In other words, these funding sources, which we have approved in earlier cases, have built-in restraints that must be considered by the Legislature when it authorizes legislation for the issuance of the bonds. In this case, the bonds have no such identifiable controls because their payment is directly from the general revenue fund. There is no statutory restriction on the total value of SBA bonds that may be issued and, unlike special-fund or leasepayment bonding, there is no identifiable source that controls the total value of bonds to be issued.^[19]

From the foregoing law, the general principle emerges that Section 4 of Article X is not designed to prohibit the State or the State's agencies from issuing revenue bonds that are payable from contracts that require rental payments of another state agency or require other necessary recurring contractual expenses such as utilities; nor does this constitutional provision preclude the issuance of revenue bonds which are to be redeemed from a special fund.

D.

The appellants place primary reliance on State ex rel. West Virginia Resource Recovery-Solid Waste Disposal Authority v. Gill, 174 W.Va. 109, 323 S.E.2d 590 (1984), and in particular, on Syllabus Point 3:

"The ultimate issue in determining whether bond financing creates a state debt in violation of Article X, Section 4 [of the West Virginia Constitution] is not whether the bonds may be paid from future legislative appropriations, but *431 whether successive legislatures are obligated to make such appropriations."

We do not find Gill persuasive simply because in Gill there was a revenue source for liquidation of the bonds that was independent of a direct grant from the State's general revenue fund. In Gill, the West Virginia Resource Recovery-Solid Waste Disposal Authority (Authority) was authorized to issue revenue bonds to construct a power generating facility in Morgantown. West Virginia University had contracted to purchase a substantial amount of its energy use from the Authority and the University's payment for this service was to be used to liquidate the bonds issued by the Authority.

In the instant case, the appellants argue that although future legislative appropriations may be used to pay for the bonds, it is clear from the language of the bonds themselves that there is no legal obligation requiring the Legislature to make such appropriations. Certainly, Syllabus Point 3 of Gill, if divorced from the facts in that case, could be used to support the appellants' position. However, this syllabus point was derived from a conclusory statement at the end of the opinion. There was no discussion therein of its impact on Section 4 of Article X of our Constitution beyond the facts of Gill.

From a literal standpoint, if Syllabus Point 3 of Gill is the litmus test for the constitutionality of bonds issued by a state authority, then the constitutional limitation of Section 4 of Article X is meaningless. Under such an interpretation, the Legislature could authorize the State or its agencies to issue bonds in any amount so long as the bonds are used for a public purpose,^[20] and so long as the terms of the bonds make clear that the bonds are not state obligations and that the Legislature is under no obligation to fund the bonds.

It is difficult for us to understand how the Gill case, under its facts, could be construed to authorize a radical change from our earlier bond cases.^[21] Certainly, the financing arrangement for the bonds in Gill was markedly different from the financing arrangement for the bonds in this case. The critical language in Gill followed a lengthy discussion and citation of cases approving long-term contracts by public agencies for the purchase of necessary services and concluded with this language: "We see no reason why the socalled `service contract doctrine' should not apply to contracts entered into by the State or its agencies to buy energy." 174 W.Va. at 114, 323 S.E.2d at 595. (Citation omitted).

The obvious import of Gill was to loosen the rather harsh restrictions created in State ex rel. Hall v. Taylor, supra, as to the use of lease contracts to finance the retirement of revenue bonds. In Hall, the Legislature authorized the State Building Authority to issue some $24,000,000 in revenue bonds. The proceeds of the bonds were to be used to build several office buildings for the purpose of housing a variety of state agencies. The revenues for the repayment of the bonds were to come from rents paid by the various state agencies leasing the buildings. We concluded that because the agencies were funded by general revenue appropriations from the Legislature, that the Legislature would thus be required to pay the agencies' rents from such funds. This arrangement would create a state debt in violation of Section 4 of Article X of our Constitution.

Certainly, Gill's attempt to rectify Hall might have been better understood if its language were more precise. Gill also might have mentioned State ex rel. State Building Commission v. Moore, 155 W.Va. 212, 184 S.E.2d 94 (1971), where we *432 approved the legislative authorization of the use of certain State Road Fund monies as rent for office space for the Department of Highways in a building constructed by the State Building Commission. The rental payments were to be utilized to liquidate revenue bonds issued by the Commission in order to build the facility. Moore also approved of a separate statutory provision that authorized a special fund from the sale of liquor "to be used by various agencies or departments of state government for payment of rent for office space leased from the Building Commission as a means of paying the principal of and the interest on `state building revenue bonds of the state'... issued ... to finance the construction of the buildings[.]" 155 W.Va. at 231, 184 S.E.2d at 105. We found in Syllabus Point 4 of Moore that the legislation at issue therein did not violate Section 4 of Article X of our Constitution.^[22]

We earlier observed that none of our prior cases, including Gill, have ever considered a revenue bond mechanism similar to the one in the present case. Our earlier cases share a common mechanism for constitutional acceptance, i.e., the revenue bonds were payable from either a special fund dedicated to the purpose for which they were issued or were payable from lease rental payments or similar contract arrangements for a necessary service on the part of the public agency. Here we are faced with bonds issued by the SBA which will be liquidated by legislative appropriations from the general fund that the Legislature is not legally obligated to make. The ultimate contention in favor of the bonds' constitutionality is that because there is no legal obligation to pay the bonds, then there is no state debt created. Consequently, there is no violation of Section 4 of Article X.

While we may admire the legal sophistry of this argument, it defies our practical judgment. If the bonds are not paid, it is obvious that the State's credit will be impaired. The default on a bond issue of this size hardly can be expected to draw cheers from the bondholders or their brokerage houses or the bond financial rating services.^[23]

In considering the validity of revenue bonds, Hall v. Taylor, supra, admonishes us that "[i]t is the duty of this Court ... to consider the substance of the plan envisioned by the statute in determining the question of constitutionality." 154 W.Va. at 673, 178 S.E.2d at 57. (Citation omitted). Moreover, Hall espoused the concept that a "mere legislative declaration that a state debt is not created ... is not conclusive or binding on a court." 154 W.Va. at 674, 178 S.E.2d at 57. Following other jurisdictions, Hall held that it is a judicial and not a legislative question "[w]hether a state debt is created by [a] statute[.]" 154 W.Va. at 674, 178 S.E.2d at 57.

There are several cases from other jurisdictions that have dealt with revenue bonds issued in a fashion similar to the bonds in this case. The appellants point to Dykes v. Northern Virginia Transportation District Commission, 242 Va. 357, 411 S.E.2d 1 (1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,