which enacted it. The presumption is always against any inten tion to attempt giving to the act an exterritorial operation and effect.0

61

On this principle, it is held that the taxing power of a state is limited to persons and property within and subject to its jurisdiction. For instance, no state could impose taxes upon land lying within the confines of another state, nor upon intangible personal property owned by nonresidents.62 For the same reason, the civil damage laws-giving a right of action against liquor sellers to innocent parties who sustain injury by the intoxication of persons supplied with liquor by the defendants-have no exterritorial operation or effect. And the same rule is applied in the case of the statutes, now quite common in the United States, which give a right of action for damages to the surviving family, or the personal representatives, of a person who has been killed by the wrongful act, omission, or default of another.64

63

The rights and jurisdiction of the several states over the sea adjacent to their coasts are those of an independent nation, except as qualified by any right of control granted to the United States by the constitution. And where, by the constitution and laws of a state, her boundaries and those of her counties are three miles from the shore, her statutes giving an action for death by negligence are operative within such boundaries, where death occurs by negligence in the navigation or towage of vessels."5

Legislature as a Trustee.

Another implied limitation upon the power of a state legislature may be found in the fact that it holds certain governmental

60 Bond v. Jay, 7 Cranch, 350; Noble v. The St. Anthony, 12 Mo. 261; Ex parte Blain, 12 Ch. Div. 522; Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. Cas. 815; Hendrickson v. Fries, 45 N. J. Law, 555; The Ohio v. Stunt, 10 Ohio St. 582.

61 Appeal of Drayton, 61 Pa. St. 172; Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Manuf'g Co. v. Gilford, 64 N. H. 337, 10 Atl. 849.

62 Case of State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 317.

63 Goodwin v. Young, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 252.

64 Beach v. Steamboat Co., 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 433; Whitford v. Railroad Co., 23 N. Y. 465.

65 Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 264, 11 Sup. Ct. 559; Humboldt Lumber Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Christopherson, 19 C. C. A. 481, 73 Fed. 239. And see Bigelow v. Nickerson, 17 C. C. A. 1, 70 Fed. 113.

powers, and certain kinds of public property, in trust for the people. That the great powers of taxation and police are thus held under a trust which forbids their surrender by the legislature or their irrevocable alienation to private persons will fully appear from other parts of this work. And the application of a similar doctrine to property belonging to the people as a whole was made in the celebrated "Chicago Lake Front Case." " Herein it was stated that the title which a state holds to lands under tide waters bordering on the sea or under the navigable waters of the Great Lakes, lying within her limits, is different in character from the title of the state to lands intended for sale, or from that of the United States to the public lands which are open to pre-emption and sale. It is a title held in trust for the people of the state, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, free from obstruction or interference by private parties. And it is not within the legislative power of the state to abdicate this trust by a grant whereby it surrenders its property and general control over the lands of an entire harbor, bay, sea, or lake, though it may grant parcels thereof for the foundation of wharves, piers, docks, and other structures in aid of commerce, or parcels which, being occupied, do not substantially impair the public interest in the waters remaining.

Appropriations, and Expenditure of the Public Money.

67

The control, administration, and disposition of the property and funds of the state, and the appropriation thereof to the payment of debts, are powers appertaining exclusively to the legislative department, and cannot be delegated to or exercised by the judicial or executive departments. In most of the states, the constitutions provide that no money shall be drawn from the treasury except under appropriations duly made by law. An appropriation, 'as applicable to the general fund in the treasury, is an authority from the legislature, given at the proper time and in legal form to the proper officers, to apply sums of money out of that which

66 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 13 Sup. Ct. 110. But compare Sunbury & E. R. Co. v. Cooper, 33 Pa. St. 278.

67 Carter v. State, 42 La. Ann. 927, 8 South. 836.

69

68

may be in the treasury, in a given year, to specified objects or demands against the state. No matter how just or equitable a claim against the state may be, no duty devolves upon the fiscal officers to pay the same, until an appropriation is made by law for that purpose. In a few of the states, it is constitutionally provided that appropriations shall not be made for a longer term than two years. But, in the absence of such a specific restriction, the control of the legislature over this subject is plenary, and there is nothing to invalidate continuing appropriations; that is, those the payment of which is to be continued beyond the next session of the legislature.70 Where, as is sometimes the case, the legislature is forbidden to make appropriations in excess of the revenue of the state, this requirement is mandatory; and it is the duty of public officers connected with the administration of the state finances to treat as void every appropriation in excess of the constitutional limits."1

Same-Bounties and Gifts to Private Persons.

It is a general principle of law that the money raised by taxation may not be appropriated and paid out of the public treasury for other than public purposes. Whether money appropriated by the legislature was intended for a public or a private purpose must be determined from the statute itself, and from such considerations as the court can judicially notice; and it is not competent to take proof and determine the question as a matter of fact.72 But it is not always easy to determine the nature of the object of an appropriation, as public or private. For instance, it is unquestionably within the power of the legislature to maintain public charities. But it is often difficult to draw the line between a legitimate public charity and the expenditure of public money for the benefit of private persons. Thus, a statute of Massachusetts, authorizing the city of Boston to issue bonds and lend the proceeds on mortgage to the owners of lands, the buildings on which were destroyed

68 Ristine v. State, 20 Ind. 328.

69 Collier & Cleveland Lithographing Co. v. Henderson, 18 Colo. 259, 32 Pac. 417.

70 In re Continuing Appropriations, 18 Colo. 192, 32 Pac. 272.

71 Henderson v. People, 17 Colo. 587, 31 Pac. 334.

72 Waterloo Woolen Manuf'g Co. v. Shanahan, 128 N. Y. 345, 28 N. E. 358.

75

76

So an act

by the great fire of 1872, was held unconstitutional." authorizing townships, in districts where there had been a failure of the crops, to issue bonds, to supply the destitute with provisions and with grain for seed, was pronounced invalid." And a similar decision was made with reference to an appropriation by the legislature for the benefit of sufferers from disastrous floods in a part of the state. Nor can a municipal corporation raise money by taxation to reimburse its treasurer for a sum paid by him to the corporation to make good an amount of the public money of which he had been robbed. And a legislative appropriation made to an individual in payment of a claim for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by him while in its service, and for which the state is not responsible, either on general principles of law or by reason of any statute, is a "gift" such as the legislature is forbidden to make." So again, it is held that a law providing that persons planting prairie land with forest trees, and cultivating the same for three years, shall receive a bounty therefor, is unconstitutional. But, on the other hand, the validity of the federal laws granting pensions to the disabled soldiers and sailors of the late. war has never been questioned. And it is held that bounties offered for the destruction of wolves and other dangerous wild animals are valid and constitutional." And, in those states where the question was raised, it was held that an appropriation of money from the state treasury, for the purpose of constructing buildings and collecting and maintaining an exhibit of the products and resources of the state at the World's Fair Columbian Exposition of 1893, was for a public purpose, and was lawful and valid.80 And, in a recent decision of the United States supreme court, congress having offered a bounty upon sugar produced within the United

78

73 Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 454.

74 State v. Osawkee Tp., 14 Kan. 418.

75 Patty v. Colgan, 97 Cal. 251, 31 Pac. 1133.

76 Bristol v. Johnson, 34 Mich. 123.

77 Bourn v. Hart, 93 Cal. 321, 28 Pac. 951.

78 Deal v. Mississippi Co., 107 Mo. 464, 18 S. W. 24.

79 Dimmit Co. v. Frazier (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 829; In re Bounties, 18 Colo. 273, 32 Pac. 423.

80 Daggett v. Colgan, 92 Cal. 53, 28 Pac. 51; Norman v. Board, 93 Ky. 537, 20 S. W. 901.

States, and then repealed the offer, it was held that sugar manufacturers who had in the meantime raised crops, and engaged in the making of sugar in the expectation of receiving the bounty, had a claim which imposed on the United States such an equitable and moral obligation as authorized the appropriation by congress of money for the payment of such bounties.81

Irrepealable Laws.

Every legislative body, unless restricted by the constitution, may modify or abolish the acts of its predecessors. And there is no way in which a legislative act can be made irrepealable, except it assume the form and substance of a contract. Nor can one legislature be bound by the acts of another as to the mode in which it shall exercise its constitutional powers.83

82

PRIVATE, SPECIAL, AND LOCAL LEGISLATION.

141. In most of the states, the enactment of private, local, or special laws is forbidden by the constitution.

In some of the states, this restriction extends only to cases in which general laws could be made applicable. In others, many subjects are enumerated on which private or special legislation is forbidden. In several of the states, the prohibition is directed against the enactment of private or local statutes regulating the internal affairs of towns and counties. Many state constitutions also provide that charters of incorporation shall be granted only in accordance with general laws, and not by special acts of the legislature. In some of the states, a still different form is found, which provides that all laws of a general nature shall be uniform in their operation throughout the state. All these provisions are mandatory, and any laws which are found to be in violation of them will be declared unconstitutional by the courts.

On the one

The object of provisions of this sort is twofold. hand, they are designed to deter the legislature from usurping judi

81 I. S. v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 427, 16 Sup. Ct. 1120.

82 Bloomer v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 158, Fed. Cas. No. 1,559.

83 Brightman v. Kirner, 22 Wis. 54.