tain expenses of the committee from Colorado to the Deep Water Convention in August, 1888, and Attorney General Jones, in an official opinion to the Chief Executive of the state, held that the said appropriation "Belongs to that class of cases which are near the line dividing the powers in the legislature from the powers which are not in the legislature. Expenditure of public money can only be made for a public purpose, affecting the interest of the state." Opinions of Attorney General, 1889-1890, page 10. In 1891 the General Assembly passed an act, "To provide for the assistance of agriculture and the relief of the settlers in certain counties of the state and to appoint a commission to carry out the provisions hereof." Session Laws, 1891, page 37. Attorney General Maupin, in an official communication directed to the State Treasurer, after stating that the evident purpose of the act was "To relieve settlers in their distress, and, as far as possible, aid them in continuing the business of farming in the locality where they now are, without which aid many of them, would be compelled to abandon their homes and farms and seek a livelihood elsewhere." And after saying, "If, therefore, it is possible, in any view of the law, to sustain the constitutionality of this enactment, it ought to be sustained." Held that the act of the legislature in appropriating money from the public treasury in the manner and for the purpose specified in said act was in direct violation of section 34, of article V, of the State Constitution, and that the act, therefore, was unconstitutional and void. He further held that the State Treasurer would not be protected in paying warrants issued under said act, and if he did so it must be at his peril. Opinions of Attorney General, 1891-1892, page 20. Attorney General Carr, in an opinion upon the constitutionality of House Bill No. 67, addressed to the Honorable, The House of Representatives of the Tenth General Assembly, under date of February 4, 1895, in answer to the following interrogatory: "Can the General Assembly legally, under the laws and Constitution, make an appropriation for the relief of the citizens of the state in distress on account of drouth or other unavoidable causes?" Reviews and approves the above-cited opinion of Attorney General Maupin. It appears from this opinion of Attorney General Carr that the Auditor of State, having refused to draw his warrant for the amount of the appropriation made by said act of 1891, a petition was accordingly filed in the District Court of Arapahoe county, praying the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel him to issue said warrant; that the said court sustained a general demurrer to the petition and that no record can be found showing the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the said Auditor of State, or that an appeal was taken from the judgment of said court upon the said demurrer. The opinion contains the following statement: "But I have been informed that the warrants were drawn by the Auditor and paid by the Treasurer." This opinion, going farther than that of his predecessor, holds that the legislature is absolutely barred by, the constitutional provision, "From making appropriations for industrial, educational, charitable or benevolent purposes, to any person whomsoever, under any circumstances whatever." The above opinion was not published in the volume of official opinions issued during that biennial period, but will be found in Record Book No. 6, in this office, at page 53. House Bill No. 67, entitled "A Bill for an Act to Provide for the Assistance of Agricultural Development and for Relief of certain settlers in certain counties in the State, and to appoint a Commission to carry out the provisions hereof," above referred to, having passed the General Assembly, and its constitutionality having been submitted to the Supreme Court by means of an executive question, that court, in its opinion, made use of the following language: "We find the principle underlying this bill condemned by our Constitution as unsafe and dangerous. It would permit relief to the silver miner whose occupation has been destroyed by hostile legislation of congress; to the mechanic who has lost his tools, and to a railroad company whose road has been destroyed by an act of God. And, however strongly the unfortunate condition of these farmers may appeal to the members of this court as individuals, as judges sworn to support the Constitution the question presented is one purely of constitutional law. We think it is clear that the state can not, in its sovereign capacity, extend aid for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community, unless such person, corporation or community is under the absolute control of the state, and that the appropriation attempted to be authorized by the bill under consideration is forbidden by section 34 of article V of our State Constitution. "We have not reached this conclusion without much reluctance. The condition of the people sought to be benefited by this act appeals to all to overlook the rules and principles established by our State Constitution, but the question presented must be determined by the court without reference to the hardships the conclusion may work in individual cases." In re Relief Bills, 21 Colo., 62, 68. Attorney General Maupin held that section 34, article V, of the State Constitution, does not prohibit the granting of donations to those who have rendered past military service to the state, his opinion being based upon the proposition that it was a payment in consideration of past services rendered the state, and not a charitable donation nor a gratuity. Opinions of Attorney General, 1891-1892, page 54. The legislature of this state having passed an act making an appropriation for the purpose of paying a bounty upon sugar beets grown in this state, Attorney General Carr, in an official opinion to the Chief Executive of the state, in which he refers to the case In re Relief Bills, supra, held that the said appropriation was in violation of section 34, of article V, of the State Constitution. Opinions of Attorney General, 1895-1896, page 37. The same Attorney General, in an official opinion addressed to the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, held that Senate Bill No. 53, "A Bill for an Act for the relief of J. B. Hurlbut, C. B. Brown and Jos. Trimmer," was in violation of sections 28 and 34, of article V, of the State Constitution. I quote from that opinion as follows: "When a citizen is deprived of his property by the unlawful and wanton acts of a mob, it goes without saying that there should be a way provided whereby he can receive compensation, but it does not follow that the state can be held liable for the unlawful acts of a mob, or that there is or can be any liability attaching to the state, or that a bill for damages in such case can be held under any circumstances to be a lawful claim against the state." Opinions of Attorney General, 1897-1898, page 185. After a careful examination and consideration of the question propounded in your communication, I am compelled to hold that appropriations of the char acter specified in said bill would be in violation of the above constitutional provisions. Respectfully submitted, D. M. CAMPBELL, Attorney General. By CALVIN E. REED, Assistant. To HON. ED. T. TAYLOR, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Capitol Building. IN RE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. The Internal Improvement Fund and the Internal Improvement Income Fund can only be used for the purpose of making internal improvements within the state of Colorado, and can not be lawfully appropriated by the General Assembly for the purpose of erecting public buildings for the use of state institutions. State of Colorado, Attorney General's Office. Denver, Colorado, February 15, 1899. Sir-I am in receipt of your official communication, under date of February 11, 1899, which is as follows: "Enclosed herewith I send you a copy of Senate Bill No. 31 and 152, the first of which provides for an appropriation of $30,000.00 out of the internal improvement income fund, for the completion of an addition to the State Normal School; and the latter bill provides for an appropriation of $30,000.00 out of said |