Sacramento daily record-union., 1881-09-28

even though the private enterprise might
benefit the local public in q remote or coli
lateral way. Legislative power of taxation
| is not illimitable. Taxation is mode of
raising revenue for public purposes. When
| it Is prostituted TO objects In no way con-
nected with the public interest or welfare, it
ceases to become taxation and becomes
plundsr.n
DECLARATIONS TO PUBLIC PURPOSES.
At leastthese heterogeneous subjects are
embraced in the Act, one OF which is not ex-
pressed in the title, and they cannot be Eegre-
gated. The title does rot express the objects
of legislation embodied in the provisions of
the Act. 1t is therefore narrower than the
body of the Act, and fails to impart that no.
tice Of measures enacted which the Copstitu-
ton requires. To prohibit such legislation
was the sole end and aim Of the constitutional
requirement. Moreover, the Legislature has
not IL any of the provisions of the Act de-
signated any particular river, stream or local.
ity within the State where drainsge is neces.
sary. TO declare public purpose, and to
create district over . desig mated area of the
State in which that purpose shall be accom-
plished, and to provide ways and means for
its accomplishment, are matters which
belong exclusively TO the Legislature.
Furthermore, the Act is unconstitutional be-
cause it authorizes local Board to levy
tax and two assessments for a public pur-
pose. at the same time upon the same prop
erty, in addition to q tax levied by the State
for the same purpose upon all the property of
the State, which, of course, includes the
property within the district. Duplicate or
triplicate taxation levied at the same time
and for the same purpose and upon the same
property within a territory of the State which
has not been established by the Legislature as
er,ocia1 fay diqtrict 30 ,.,bathar Iaxy;ad
according to the standard valuation or bene.
fits. Such taxation is destructive of that
equality and uniformity which the Constitu-
tion requires for the validity of every tax.
Judgment reversed.
CONCURRENT OPINIONS.
Justice Ross opinion, coneurred in by Jus.
tice Thornton, concurs with the foregoing. It
says there is no power anywhere to compel
the Boards of District Directors to establish
any particular district or districts, for the
Act has left the determination of those ques-
tions to their judgment and discretion. This
1T could not constitutionally do. The estab-
lishment of such districts is legislative func-
tion, to be exercised by legislative body,
| and the Legislature is expressly prohibited by
the Const ltion of the State from clothing
any of its executive officers with such pewer.
Numerous other objections are made to the
Act which need not be determined since the
one just considered is fatal to it.
Justice Myrick also filed cohcurring opin-
ion, which says: TIE Act is obnoxious to the
Constitution, in that part of it discussed in
the opinion Of MIR. Justice Ross and the opin-
lou of Mr.. Justice Mckee. It may be very
much doubted if by the so-called Drainage
Act even its probable meaning and intent is
expressed. viz: In speaking of the formation
| of districts it says: Each of which shall
include territory drained by one natural
| system of drainage" 1t does not say that
such district shall include all the territory
drained by one system, but that the territory
| included within the district shall be drained
| by one system-a distinction leaving open a
wide door for the creation of an almost un.
| limited number of districts. Therefore, and
| for the reasons given upon this subject by
Mr.. Justice Mckee and MIR. Justice Ross, I
| concur in the judgment.
Justice McKinstry's concurring opinion
says: So far as the tax on the lands in the
district is concerned, it may, under the Act,
be required to be paid before the work is
completed or commenced But. il this were
| not so, the defect is in the law itself, which
cannot be held to be good, because by posi-.
bility, all the money raised in the State at
large and from the three modes of taxation
applicable within district, may be expended
by the Board of Directors Of that district.
THE DISSENTING OPINION.
Justice Sharpstein dissents. In his opinion
he says: The conclusion at which have ar
rived is, that if all those provisions of the Act
which contemplate the raising of funds BY tax
ing or assessing any property other than that
Of the entire State, should be held to be M
constitutional, the defendants could not lie
ousted from office, nor enjoined from letting
contracts, nor in this action from leyying a
tax within the district specified, ard if the
Act be constitutional to the extent which I
think it to be. il is quite clear that this Court
cannot hold that said district has not been
legally formed. It not being clear to my
mind that those provisions of the Act which
affect the people Of the entire State are un-
constitutional, think that the Judgment of
| the Court below should be affirmed.
| IT has wonderful power on bowels, liver
and kidneys. What Kidner-Wort.