Isaac LUND, Respt.,

the governor, sball deem for the best interests

of this state, and receive donations or be. CHIPPEWA COUNTY et al., Appts. quests which may be made for its mainte

dance and support; that the site selected shall (........ Wis.........)

comprise not less than 200 acres of land pos.

sessing good facilities for drainage and sew. 1. Counties are municipalities within the erage, and an abundant supply of pure water; meaning of Laws 1895, chap. 138, authorizing that municipalities of this state are hereby municipalities to make donations to the state empowered to make the donations herein menhome for the feeble-minded.

tioned for the establishment and building of 2. Implied power to issue bonds is given such a home. (2) That the general super

to a county hy authority to make a donation of vision and government of the home shall be money or other securities" for the benefit of a vested in the state board of control, pursuant state home for the feeble-minded.

to the law creating aod defining the duties 3. Donations by a county, made merely of said board, and they sball establish a sys

to secure a site for a state institution for the tem of government for the institution, and feeble-minded, and in no way affecting the shall make all necessary rules and regulaefficiency and successful operation of the insti- tions for enforcing discipline, imparting intution when established, are not against public struction, preserving health, and for the proper

policy. 4. The constitutional rule of uniform that they shall appoint a superintendent, a

care and training of the persons in said bome; ity in taxation is not violated by a statute auiborizing a county to make a donation to se matron, and such other officers, teachers, and cure the location of a state institution within employees as shall be necessary, who shall sevthe county, although that county as well as

erally hold their offices or places during the others will be taxed for its maintenance.

pleasure of the board. (3) That all feeble5. The use of county funds to make a minded, epileptic, and idiotic persons, resi.

donation to a state institution for the dents of the state, or any such persons found feeble-minded in order to secure its location

therein whose residence cannot be ascertained, within that county is for a public purpose, and may be admitted to said home, and receive may be authorized by the legislature.

the benefit thereof, free of charge, subject to

such rules and regulations as may be made by (June 19, 1896.)

the said board of control; tbat they shall adopt

and publish a schedule of maximum charges the Circuit Court for Chippewa County placed in the home, but who shall not be entioverruling a demurrer to the complaint in an iled to be admitted or kept free of charge; action brought to enjoin the issuance and sale provided, that all provisions of chap. 32, Rev. of certain county bonds. Reversed.

Siat. relating to the support of insane persons,

and the liability of counties therefor, shall also Statement by Cassoday, Ch. J.:

apply, as far as practicable, to persons admitIt appears from the complaint, and chapter ted to the home for feeble-minded. (4) That 138, Laws 1895, therein referred to, entitled suid bome shall be organized into three de"An act to Establish a Home for the Custody, partments, as follows: First, a school deTraining, and Education of the Feeble-Minded, partment for the educable grades or classes; Epileptic, and Idiotic, and to Appropriate Cer: second, a custodial department for the belpless tain Sums of Money therein Nained,” and and lower types; third, such other departwhich was published and went into effect ments or colonies as the needs of the instituApril 9, 1895, and which act, among other tion may require. (5) That as soon as practithings, provided in effect that there is cable such trades and manual industries as are hereby created and established, for the care, adapted to these several departments shall be custody, and training of the feeble-minded; introduced and established by tbe state board epileptic, and idiotic of this state, an institu of control. (6) That some lime prior to No. tion to be known as “The Wisconsin Home vember 19, 1895, the state board of control lo. for the Feeble Minded:” (1) That the state cated said home at Chippewa Falls; that the board of control select a suitable site for such place of said location is the extreme sontberly a home, and have power to receive proposals end of the county: that the board of superfor a donation of land to the state for such visors for Chippewa county at its regular ansite, and to receive the same by gift, or to pur inual meeting beld November 19, 1895, passed chase such site; that they may receive pro- an ordinance entitled “An ordinance to proposals for donations of money or other securi- vide for the donation of certain money to the ties, in behalf of this state, for the benefit of Wisconsin Home for the Feeble-Minded, and such bome; that they may locate the same, to provide for the issue of county bonds ibereby and with the consent of the governor of for;” that the ordinance was duly published as the state, at such point as they, together with I required by law November 20, 1895; that pur.


NOTE.-The effect of a gift to the public as brib- What are public purposes for which public money ery, when made to obtain the location of county may properly be used is the subject of a note to buildings or to obtain some other public improve- Daggett v. Colgan (Cal.) 14 L. R. A. 474. See, on ment, is the subject of a note to State, North Orange the same question, Baltimore v. Keeley Institute Baptist Church, v. Orange (N. J.) 14 L. R. A. 62. (Md.) 7 L. R. A. 646. See, in addition, Ayres v. Moan (Neb.) 15 L. R. A.501.

suant to and by virtue of that ordinance the 101 U. S. 407, 25 L. ed. 1015; Hensley Tup. v. defendants Firth and Sharp, as county clerk People, 84 III. 544. and cbairman of the board of supervisors, In Wasson v. Wayne County Comrs. supra, threatened to, and were about to issue and exthe court cites as authority to sustain its deecute, in tbeir official capacity as such clerk cisions the cases of State, Board of Edu., v. and chairman, in bebalf of the county, twelve Haben, 22 Wis. 661; Liringston County negotiable bonds of the face value of $1,000 Super8. v. Weider, supra; Sleight v. People, each, and one negotiable bond of the face Weller Twp. 74 III. 47. value of $700, beariog interest at the rate of 5 The constitutionality of this act is sustained per cent per appum, payable annually, and the by Livingston County v. Darlington, 101 U. S. principal sums to be evidenced by such bonds 407, 25 L. ed. 1015; Brodhead v. Milwaukee. 19 to be made payable five years from that date, Wis. 625, 88_Am. Dec. 711; Speer v. Blairs. and tbat the treasurer of ihe county, Henry ville School Directors, 50 Pa. 150; State, McGoetz, bas advertised for sale, and threatened Curdy, v. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664, 9 Am. Rep. to sell, said bonds, December 5, 1895, at public 622; Curtis v. Whipple, 24 Wis. 350; Knowlauction, to the bigbest bidder; that December ton v. Rock County Supers. 9 Wis. 410; Soens 4, 1895, the plaintiff, a resident and freeholder v. Racine, 10 Wis. 271; Hasbrouck v. Miland taxpayer of Chippewa county, com. waukee, 13 Wis. 38, 80 Am. Dec. 718; Whitmenced ibis action in bebalf of himself and all ing v. Sheyboygan & F. du L. R. Co. 25 Wis. other taxpayers of that county, against the167, 3 Am. Rep. 30. county, its treasurer, clerk, and chairman of Mr. T. F. Frawley, with Mr. C. T. its board of supervisors, and in his complaint Bundy, for respondent: alleged, in effect, the facts stated, and giving a The court, at ibe instance of a taxpayer, copy of said ordinance, and also alleged, in will enjoin the issue and sale of bonds for an effect, that the county clerk threatened to and illegal or unlawful purpose or when issued would insert $3,750 annually in the tax roll of without authority of law; and will enjoin the the county for five years, beginning with 1896, levy of a tax not authorized by law, or one and would, unless restrained, levy the same wbich violates a constirutional provision. against all the taxable property of the county High, Inj. Ss 1283, 1299; Wright v. Bishop, for the purpose of paying said bonds; that said 88 11. 302; Curtenius v. Hoyt, 37 Mich. 583; ordinance was and is illegal and void; that the Foster v. Kenosha, 12 Wis. 617; Larson v. appropriation therein contained for the pay Schwellen, 33 Wis. 288; Willard v. Comstock, ment of said bonds was and is wholly without 58 Wis. 566, 46 Am. Rep. 657. authority of law, in that the county board Chapter 138 of the Laws of 1895, authorizhad no legal authority to create an indebted. ing “the municipalities of this state to make ness of the county for the purposes men the donations therein mentioned.” does not tioned; that the plaintiff's taxes, and the authorize a county to make such donations; a taxes of all other taxpayers of the county, county is not a municipality. would be largely increased by reason of Euc. Brittanica, Municipality, 1 Dill. Mun. such illegal appropriation; and tbat they Corp. Ss 22-27; 1 Desty, Taxo. S 97-99; would thereby suffer irreparable loss and Cooley, Const. Lim. $ 240, 241; Waltham v. injury. The plaintiff prayed judgment that Kemper, 55 III. 316, 8 Am. Rep. 672; Loril. the ordinance, and all proceedings under and lard v. Monroe, 11 N.Y. 392, 62 Åm. Dec. 120; by virrue thereof, be set aside and declared Williamsport v. Com., Bair. 84 Pa 499, 24 null and void; that the defendants named and Am. Rep. 208; Norton v. Peck, 3 Wis. 714; their successors in office, be perpetually re. Eaton v. Manitowoc County Supers. 44 Wis. sirained and enjoined from enforcing the same. 489; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Oconto, 50 To such complaint the defendants demurred Wis. 195, 36 Am. Rep. 840; Smith v. Sherry, on the ground that it did not state a cause of 50 Wis. 213; Cathcurt v. Comstock, 56 Wis. action. From the order overruling that de 609; State, Hiles, v. Wood County Super8. 61 murrer, the defendants bring this appeal. Wis. 2-0.

Chapter 138, Laws of 1895, contravenes $ 1, Messrs. W. R. Hoyt and L. J. Rusk, art. 8, of the Constitution of Wisconsin, and for appellants:

is void. The county is a municipality within the act. The legislature has no power to lery a tax

Norton v. Peck, 3 Wis 714; Eaton v. Manito. on the property of Chippewa county sepa. wor County Supers. 44 W is. 489; State v. Hogue, rately from the taxable property of the rest of 71 Wis. 384; Bookhout v. State, 66 Wis. 415. the state, for a state purpose, without the con

The county board of supervisors had au- sent of the people of Chippewa county. thority to issue bonds.

Cooley, Const. Lim. 283; Cooley, Taxn. Mills v. Glerson, 11 Wis. 470, 78 Am. Dec. 140, 142; Dorgan v. Boston, 12 Allen, 223; 721; Clark v. Janesville, 10 Wis. 135; State v. Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 146, 3 Am. Madison, 7 Wis. 688; 1 Dill. lun. Corp. 4th Rep. 615; Ex parte marshall, 64 Ala. 266; ed. $ 118; Beach, Mun. Corp. & 835; La l'ointe state, Molurdy, v. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664, 9 Superr. v. O'Malley, 47 Wis. 332.

Am. Rep. 622; State, Board of Edu., v. Haben, The unconstitutionality of the act is sus. 22 Wis. 660. tained by only two decisions.

The entire taxing power is vesied in the Liringston County Supers. v. Weider, 64 Ill. legislature, which can, in proper cases and for 427; Wasson v. Wayne County Comr8. 49 Obio certain purposes, delegate such power to the St. 6:2, 17 L R. A 795.

political subdivisions of the state. Such politLivingston County Supers. v. Weider, supra, icul subdivisions have no inherent power to has been overruled in Burr v. Carbondale, 76 levy a tax for any purpose, but have such only III. 455, and Livingston County v. Darlington, as is delegated to them by the legislature.

1 Desty, Taxo. 253, 470-475; Cooley, Taxn. paper of any kiod, unless such power is ex329; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 821; United States pressly conferred upon them or clearly implied v. Nero Orleans, 98 U. S. 381, 25 L. ed. 225: irom some other power expressly given. Justice v. Logansport, 101 Ind. 326; 25 Am. & 1 Dill. Muu. Corp. Ss 123, 507; Claiborne Eng. Euc. Law. p. 18; Knowlton v. Rock County v. Brooks, 111 U.S. 400, 28 L. ed. 470; County Supers. 9 Wis. 411.

Police Jury p. Britton, 82 U. S. 15 Wall. 566, The legislature has no power to delegate its 21 L. ed. 251; Nashrille v. Ray, 86 U. S. 19 taxing power to a municipal corporation or Wall. 468. 22 L. ed. 164. political subdivision, except for local or corpo- The Constitution is a limitation, and not a rate purposes.

grant of power. 1 Desty, Taxn. 26, 253, 259, 274; Cooley, Bushnell v. Beloit, 10 Wis. 196. Const. Lim. 260; People v. Park., 58 Cal. 644; Tbe benefi's to be derived by Chippewa Foster V. Kenoxha, 12 Wis. 618; Slinger v. county from the location of this institution at Henneman, 38 Wis. 510; Taylor v. Chandler, Chippewa Falls, are not such as to make a 9 Heisk. 349: Washington Arenue, 69 Pa. 352, tax levied to establish and maintain it a tax 8 Am. Rep. 255; State, McCurdy, v. Tappan, levied for a corporate purpose. 29 Wis. 684, 9 Am. Rep. 622; Const. art. 2, Livingston County Supers. v. Weider, 64 Ill.

22; Jensen v. Polk County Supers. 47 Wis. 427; Wasson v. Wayne County Comrs. 49 Obio 313.

Sl. 622, 17 L. R. A. 795; State, Board of Edu., The legislature cannot delegate any greater ! v. Haben, 22 Wis. 664; State, McCurdy, v. Tap. power than the state itself possesses, and it pan. 29 Wis. 664, 9 Am. Rep. 622. must observe tbe restrictions of the organic The legislature cannot do indirectly (hy del. law.

egation) what it cannot, under the Constitu. Cooley. Lim. 240; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. tion, do directly. $8 740, 773; 1 Desty, Taxn. 259; O'Donnell v. Cooley, Const. Lim. 240; Nevil v. Clifford, Bailey, 24 Miss. 386; Primm v. Belleville, 59 63 Wis. 447; La Pointe Super8. v. O'Malley, 47 Ill. 142; Weightman v. Clark, 103 U. S. 256, Wis. 337. 26 L. ed. 392; Wasson v. Wayne County Comrs. A tax cannot be apportioned to the benefits 49 Obio St. 622, 17 L. R A. 795; People, De- or supposed benefits received. This can only troit & II. R. Co., V. Salem Tip. Board, 20 be done by "assessments” in cities and in inMicb. 474, 4 Am. Rep. 400; Anderson v. Hill, corporated villages. 54 Mich. 487.

Wis. Const, art. 11, $ 3; Weeks v. MilwauThe rule of uniformity, provided by S 1, kee, 10 is. 56. art. 8, of the Constitution, requires that taxa.

On rehearing. tion shall be uniform within and for the district All the power of taxation is vested in the for which the tax is levied.

legislature; all taxes levied by a political sub25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 60: Cooley, division are, in legal effect, levied by tbe state. Const. Lim. 494; Cooley, Taxn. 140, 143, 244; The power of the legislature to tax is limited 1 Desty, Taxn. 175, 176: Livingston County by the Constitution. Supers. v. Weider, 64 Ill. 427; Wasson v. Wayne Any single individual bas a right to insist County Comrs. supra; New Orleans v. Fourchu, that ihe public does not own or control his 30 La. Ann. 912; Dyar v. Farmington, 70 Me. property for the purpose of donation. 515; Pleuler v. State, 11 Neb. 547; East Port- People, Detroit & H. R. Co., v. Salem Tup. land v. Multnomah County, 6 Or. 62; Weight- Board, 20 Mich. 487, 4 Am. Rep. 400. man v. Clark, 103 U. S. 256, 26 L. ed. 592; Taxes levied by municipal corporations, Knowlton v. Rock County Supers. 9 Wis. 411; which are for this purpose instruments of Hale v. Kenosha, 29 Wis. 603.

the state, are, in legal effect. levied by the A rule of taxation that requires a county to state. contribute twice to the same burden, while Justice v. Logan sport, 101 Ind. 326; Knowl. other counties are required to contribute but ton v. Rock County Supers. 9 Wis. 411. once, violates $ 1, art. 8, of the Constitution Can the state. by its legislature or its infeand is void,

rior agents, apporiion a lax for a state purCooley, Taxn. 222; State, Nunnemacher, v. pose? Mann, 76 Wis. 498.

A tax levied for a state purpose must be If chapter 138 of the Laws of 1895 violates levied upon all the taxable property within the rule of uniformity it is unconstitutional and the state, and cannot be apporiioned. void, and tbe consent of the board of super- Weeks v. Milwauker, 10 Wis. 256. visors capnot validate the tax levied under it. If this money was not voted for a local

Cooley, Const. Lim. 240; Cooley, Taxn. 143; purpose, but for a state purpose, the rule of 1 Desty, Taxp. 259, 481; O'Donnell v. Bailey, uniformity was brokev. Primm v. Belleville, People, Detroit & H. R. W'asson v. Wayne County Com r8. 49 Obio St. Co., v. Salem Ticp. Board, and Wasson v. 622, 17 L. R. A. 795; State, Board of Edu., v. Wayne County Comrs. supra; Whiting v. She- Haben, 22. Wis. 664; etate, Meturdy, v. Tapboygan & F. du L. R. Co. 25 Wis. 173, 3 Am. pan, 29 Wis. 679, 9 Am. Rep. 622; Desty, Taxn. Rep. 30; Anderson v. Hill, 54 Mich. 491. 274; Cooley, Taxo. 140; Knowlton v. Rock

Under chapter 136 of the Laws of 1895, the County Supers. 9 Wis. 411, Approved in Hale county board of Chippewa county had no au- v. Kenosha, 29 Wis. 664. thority to issue the bonds in question.

In respect of public 'or quasi corporations, Mere political bodies, constituted as counties, such as counties, as distinguished from municare for ibe purpose of local police administra- ipal corporations proper, the general current tion, and, having the power of levying taxes of authority is against the proposition that, as for the purpose of paying all county charges ordinarily recoguized they possess any power created, have no power to make commercial to issue negotiable instruments.

[ocr errors]

1 Dill. Mun. Corp. 507; Cooley, Const. Lim. no reference to cities or villages, but deals 240, 241; Cooley, Taxn. 143; Clark v. Janes throughout with counties, we must conclude ville, 10 Wis. 170; Merrick v. Amherst, 12 Allen, that by the word “municipalities,” as used in 500; State, Board of Edu., v. Haben, 22 Wisthe aci in question, the legislature intended to 660; State, McCurdy, v. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664, 9 include counties. Am. Rep. 622; Whiting v. sheboygan & F. du 2. It is contended that the language of the L. R. CO, 25 Wis. 167, 3 Am. Rep. 30; Ellis v. statute is not broad enough to authorize the Northern P. R. Co. 77 Wis. 118.

proposed issue of the bonds It is not conA town cannot assume, nor can the state tended that the county board would bave had compel it to assume, as a town charge, a bur. such power in the absence of chap. 138, Laws den which should properly be borne by the 1895. By that act the state board of control whole state. A local assessment for a general was expressly empowered to “receive proposals benefit is unconstitutiona).

for donations of money or other securities in Desty, Taxp. 274; Foster v. Kenosha, 12 behalf of this state for the benefit of such Wis. 618; Gordon v. Cornes, 47 N. Y. 608; home," and may also "receive any donations Livingston County v. Darlington, 101 U. S. or bequests which may be made for its main407, 25 L. ed. 1015; State v. Nelson County, 1 tenance and support," and the municipalities N. D. 88.

of this state" were thereby expressly "em

powered to make the donations herein [tbereio] Cassoday, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of mentioned for the establishment and building the court:

of such a home.” $ 2. The words, “other It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff securities” are certainly broad enough to inthat a county is not a municipality, within the clude bonds. If the county board had power mearing of chap. 138, Laws 1895. Properly to issue such “securities,” then, under the despeaking, municipal corporations are brought cisions of this court, they had the implied into existence at the instance or request of the power to put them in the form of bonds. persons residing therein, for their own local Mills v. Gleason, 11 Wis. 470, 78 Am. Dec. advancement and convenience. On the other 721; State v. Madison, 7 Wis. 688; State, hand, counties are local subdivisions of the Priest, v. Regents of Wis. University, 54 Wis. state, created by its own sovereign power and 170: Gilman v. Milwaukee, 61 Wis. 592, will, without the particular solicitation, con- 1 Reid, Corporate Finance, $ 8. sent, or concurrent action of the citizens 3. “The legislature may confer upon the thereof, and almost exclusively with a view to boards of supervisors of the several counties of the policy of the state at large, for purposes of the state such powers of a local, legislative, and political organization and civil administration. I administrative character, as they sball from i Dill. Mun. Corp. § 23. The same learned time to time prescribe.” Wis. Const. art. 4, author says: “The phrase 'municipal corpora- $ 22. In construing this provision of our Con. tion’ is used with us, in general, in the strict stitution, ibis court has beld "that, when any and proper sense just mentioned; but some subject of legislation is intrusted to said county times it is used in a broader sense, that includes boards by general words in a statute, they acalso public or quasi corporations, the principal quire a right to pass any ordinance necessary purpose of whose creation is as an instrumen or convenient for the purpose of disposing of taiity of the state, and not for the regulation the whole committed to them, and for of the local and special atiairs of a countbat purpose have all the powers of the state pact community.” Id. S 20.

We are

con legislature over that subject, unless the statute strained to hold that counties are municipalities, restricts the power, or directs its exercise in a within the meaning of the provision of the act certain way. La Pointe Supers. v. O'Malley, wbich declares that “municipalities of this 47 Wis. 332; Knight v. Ashland, 61 Wis. 233. state are hereby empowered to make the do. The county was expressly empowered by stat. dations berein mentioned for the establishment ute "10 apportion and order the levying of and building of such a bome.” Laws 1895. taxes, as provided by law, and direct the raising chap. 138, 32. Thus in Erton v. Manitmcoc of such sums of money as may be necessary County Supers. 44 Wis. 493, it is said: “Towns to defray the county charges and expenses, are often called in common parlance, and and all necessary cbarges incident to or arissometimes, unguardedly in statutes, munic-ing from the execution of their lawful auibor. ipal corporations,' in connection with counties, ity" Rev. Siat. $ 669, subd. 5. cities, and villages; but when so called it is in 4. It is contended that the authority tbus the sense of mere corporations, or quasi cor: given to the county by the act in question to porations, or corporations sub modo, only, and donate to the state “money or other securities not in the sense of municipalities proper.” for the establishment and building, of such Cathcart v. Comstock, 56 Wis. 606, 608. The home” was contrary to public policy, and site to be selected was to comprise pot less than therefore void. This court bas held that "ibe 200 acres of land, with good drainage and legislature may impose conditions precedent sewerage facilities, and an abundant supply of to the removal of a county seat, ip addition to pure water,

It would hardly be expecied 10 those imposed by the state Constitution." find such a site in a city or incorporated vil-State, Park, v. Portage County Supers. 24 lage. Besides, the act makes all the provisions Wis. 49. In that case the act which was held of chap. 32, Rev. Stat., relating to the support valid provided, in effect, tbat, after a majority of insane persons and the liability of counties of the votes should be cast in favor of remor. therefor, applicable, as far as practicable, to ing the county seat to the city of Stevens Point, persons admitted to the home for the feeble yet it should not be so removed uutil that city minded. $ 4. Since the chapter of the Re. should first place at the control of the county vised Statutes so made applicable has little or board $10,000, with wbich to build county


buildings at that place. To the same effect is legislature has no power, against the will of a Pepin County v. Prindle, 61 Wis. 311-314. municipal corporation, to compel it to contract Such donations bave been sanctioned in several debts for local purposes io wbich the state bas states. Id., and cases there cited; Behan v. do concern, or to assume obligations not within Ghio, 75 Tex. 87. The donation here author- the ordinary functions of municipal governized was merely to secure a site for the home, ment.

The state in such cases may and in no way affected the efficiency and suc- remove restrictions and permit action, but it cessful operation of tbe institution when estab. cannot compel it.” Conley, Const. Lim. 230, lisbed. Upon the authorities cited, we must 231. We bave a good illustration in tbis state. bold'that the authorizing of such donation Our Constitution provides that “the state shall was not against public policy.

never contract any debt for works of internal 5. The principal contention is that the au improvement, or be a party in carrying on thorization of such donations was repugnant such works." $ 10, art. 8. Nevertheless the to that clause of our Constitution which de- legislature has, from time to time, commencclares that “the rule of taxation shall be upi. ing with the early history of the state, auiborform, and taxes sball be levied upon such ized such municipalities to contract such debts, property as the legislature shall prescribe.” if not to be a party in carrying on such works, $ 1, art. 8. This provision manifestly re- and such legislation bas frequently been held to quires such uniformity, in case of a state tax, be valid. Hasbrouck v. Milwaukee, 13 Wis. to extend throughout the state; in case of a 42, 80 Am. Dec. 718. Cases to such effect are county tax, to extend throughout the county; numerous. Atty. Gen. v. Eau Claire, 37 Wis. in case of a city tax, to extend throughout the 400. That the legislature may authorize mucity; and, in case of a town tax, to extend picipalities to levy taxes for purposes for wbich tbroughout the town. In other words, the it cannot compel tbem to levy taxes might be rule of uniformity is not broken merely be illustrated by ibe citation of numerous adjudi. cause a town or city or county raises a special cations, but it is unnecessary. See, however, tax for local purposes. If the proposed iax to Brodnead v. Milwaukee, 19 Wis. 625, 88 Am. pay the $12.700 in securities donated by Chip- Dec. 711; State, McCurdy, v. Tappan, 29 Wis. pewa county may properly be regarded as a 664, 9 Am. Rep. 622. This court has held county tax, ihen the question of uniformity is that legislation to the effect that where the cost not involved, since there is no pretense that, of a bridge in a town exceeds a certaio per cent in levying that tax upon the taxable property of all the taxable property of the town, the in ibat county, any other iban such uciform county may be required to pay one half of rule is to be followed. It is sought to bring the cost thereof, is valid, and does not break the case within the condemnation of the con the rule of uniformity. State, Baraboo, v. stitutional provision quoted, on the theory that Sauk ('ounty Supers. 70 Wis. 485. the proposed home is to be a state institution; 6. Since the securities autborized to be do. that it is to be governed, copirolled, and man pated in the case at bar are securities issued by aged wbolly by state officers and agencies; that the county, and since the proposed taxes in it is to be established, built, and maintained payment of the same are to be county taxes, by all the taxpayers and taxable properly the precise question presented is whether througbout the state, including such property the purpose for which such securities were and taxpayers in Chippewa county; ibat tbe donated, and for which such taxes state would bave bad po power. by direct action, to be raised, is such as to justify the pro. to compel one or more counties of the state. visions of the enactment in question. This less tban the whole, to pay an additional amount court bas sustained the validity of acts of for such establishment, building, and maiute the legislature authorizing municipalities pance; and hence that the legislature could not, to raise moneys by taxation to pay bounties by delegating such authority to such munici. to volunteers in the United States army. palities, do indirectly what, under the Consti. Brodhead v. Milwaukre, and State, McCurdy, v. iution, it could not have done directly. It is Tappin, supra. In those cases it was, among certainly to be a state institution; to be gov. other things, in effect, heli that wbile "the erped, controlled, and managed by the state: | legislature cannot create a public debt, or levy and to be established, built, and maintained a tax, or autborize a municipal corporation to by the state. But it does not follow that the do so, in order to raise funds for a mere pristate could not authorize a municipality in vate purpose," and while "the objects for wbich it should be located to do what ibe state which money is raised by taxation must be itself could not do directly. In speaking of public, and such as subserve the coinmon the twofold character of such municipalities, interest and wellbeing of the community reas agencies of the state government and as quired to contribute,” yet "to justify a court “corporations endowed with capacities, and in declaring a tax void, and arresting proceedpermitted to hold property and enjoy peculiar ings for its collection, the absence of all possiprivileges for the benefit of their corporators ble public interest in the purposes for which exclusively,”—Mr. Cooley says: “The legisla the funds are raised must be so clear and palture may permit the incurring of expense, the pable as to be immediately perceptible to every contracting of obligations, and the levy of taxes mind:” that "claims founded in equity and which are unusual, and which would not be justice, in the largest sense of those terms, or admissible under the powers usually conferred. in gratitude or charity, will support a tax;" Instances of the kind may be mentioned in the that "the legislature may authorize a town or offer of military bounties, and the payment of other municipality to levy taxes therein for a disproportionate share of a siate burden in public purposes not strictly of a municipal consideration of peculiar local benefits which character, but from which the public bave reare to spring from it. But it is believed tbeceived, or will receive, some direct advantage,


« ForrigeFortsett »