The record-union., 1891-11-24
WORLDS FAIR MONEY.
The Supreme Court Says 1t Was Le-
gally Appropriated.
legislatures Have Considerable Lati-
tude in the Matter of Appropriating
Funds for Public Purposes.

cation Of Daggett and others for writ of
mandate to compel State Controller Col
gan to draw his warrant on the State
Treasurer, in payment of claim con-
tracted and audited by the petitioners, as
members Of the California Worlds Fair
Commission, in pursuance of the author
ity given such commission by the Act of
the last Legislature. 1t is in favor of the
petitioners.
The Act provides for tho appointment
by the Governor of commission who
''shall have the exclusive charge aud con-
troll of the expenditure of all moneys APP
propriated by the State of California for
the construction of buildings and main
tanning an exhibit of the products of the
State of California at the Worlds Fair
Columbian Exposition, to be held IN the
city Of Chicago, State Of Illinois, in 1893. -
Alter quoting this provision Of the Act,
the Supreme Court says:
By Section of the Act the sum of
SjOO,OOO Is appropriated ito meet the ex-
pouses OF erecting buildings and main
tanning an exhibit OF the products of the
state of California at the Worlds Column
bian Exposition" at Chicago, and the
Controller is directed to draw his warrant
on the treasury from time to time in
laVor Of such persons as the majority
of the Commissioners, provided for by
the Act, shall direct
GROUND OF THE DEMURRER.
The Controller demurred to the petit
ton upon the general ground that the
facts therein stated do not entitle petit
tioners to the writ demanded, and in sup
port Of this demurrer contended:
tirSt-Ehat the Act of the Legislature
referred to is in conflict with that pro-
vision OF Section y of Article ". Of the
Constitution, which declares that mo
money shall ever be appropriated or
drawn from the State Treasury for the
use or benefit of any corporation, associa-
ton, asylum, hospital or any other insti-
tuition not under the exclusive manage
Inent and control of the State as a State
institution, nor shall any grant or dona-
ton Of property ever be made thereto by
the State.r
Second-In considering the question
thus presented the court will take judicial
notice of the fact that the Worlds Fair
columbian Exposition, referred to in the
statute under consideration, is to be held
under and by virtue of the provisions of
IN Act of Congress, approved April %,
1880, and that such exposition viii not be
conducted under the exclusive manage
lnent and control of this State as a State
institution, but on the contrary, that the
same viii be under the general manage
lnent of the National Commission, ore
agency relied upon to effect the design of
congress IS private corporation of the
state OF Illinois, which is authorized by
the Act OF Congress to charge such en-
trance ana admission fee to such expo
sition las shall be fixed and established
10y said corporation, subject, however. to
such modification, il. any, as may be i'm
posed by majority of said Commissions
erS"
IT HAS NO APPLICATION.
But while conceding these to be facts,
unless the Act under consideration makes
an appropriation for the use and benefit
Cf the National Commission, or in aid of
the private corporation, through the in
strumentality of which the exposition is
IN great part to be conducted, and from
the success of which that corporation ex-
poets to derive pecuniary profit, it is
clear that the provision of the COnStitu-
ton above quoted, and relied upon by
tGfendant, can have no application.
1t is claimed by the defendant that the
statute under consideration does in effect
make such an appropriation, but we are
rot able to find anything in its language
which would justify the contention of
defendant on this point. On the contrary,
it appears from the Act itself that the
appropriation is to be
EXPENDED BY THE STATE. ITSELF.
Disbursed by its own agents or officers,
and is TO be used only for the purpose of
erecting buildings and collecting and
maintaining an exhibit of the products
Of the State of California"
Even if it could be said, with any de-
gree of certainty, that the private cor
poration referred to in the Act of Con-
gresS viii increase its receipts because of
the fact that the State is to place it's
products on exhibition, or that it may
derive a benefit from the rent of its
grounds to the State, or realize other
still &c 81,
question we are considering, or bring the
appropriation within the prohibition of
the section of the Constitution above
quoted, as it is apparent that the main
object of the statute is not to confer such
incidental benefit but rather to promote
what is assumed to be a
MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN,
and for the public good. In every pub
lie expenditure, individuals derive incl
dental aid and benefit, in the sense that
tuey are paid for services rendered or ar
ticles furnished to the State in the prose-
cution of the public improvement or
business OF the State, and the expendi-
ture contemplated by this Act will not be
exceptional in this respect but there is
nothing upon the face of the statute to in
0icate that the private corporation re-
ferred to, or any individual, will or can.
u the appropriation is honestly ex-
pended, receive one dollar as a gratuity.
CC Dy way Ol dSSlStdUcS, OF except III
turn for something of value which the
officers charged with its disbursement
shall deem necessary to secure, in order
10 effect the general purpose and object
of the Act.
POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE.
The defendant further contends that
the statute is unconstitutional, for the
reason that the appropriation thereby
made is not for a public use. such as the
4 tn br
maintenance of all exhibition of the pro-
cucts of the State in the manner contem-
plated does not fall within the legitimate
authority of the State Government.
In passing upon this proposition If is
necessary to bear in mind that what is
Tor the public good and what are public
purposes are questions which the Legis-
lature must decide upon it's own judg-
Inent, in respect TO which il is vested
with large discretion which cannot be
controlled by the courts, except, perhaps,
where its action is clearly eCQSiDc 8
Where the power which is exercised is
legislative in its character, the courts can
enforce only those limitations which the
Constitution imposes not those implied
restrictions which, resting in theory only.
the people have been satisfied TO leave
to the Judgment, patriotism and sense of
justice OF their representatives. Cooley
on Const. Lin. I54.l
''PUBLIC UsEsi DEFINED.
1t is undoubtedly true that public
money can be rightfully expended only
tor public purposes, but it was well said
by that eminent jurist, Judge Cooley, in
delivering the opinion OF the court, in
People VS.. Salem, 20 Mich. 452: Neces-
sity alone is not the test by which the
limits of State authority in this direction
are to be defined, but wise statesman
ship must look beyond the expenditures
1Ehich are ahSolutalv naedfIll 10 the CON