The record-union., 1891-09-12
is IT CONSTITUTIONAL /?
The Law Appropriating Money for
the Worlds Fair.
Can the 100000 be Expended by the
commissioners
of the Briefs.

pIeAle CourG OF THIS state very interest,"
Ing proceeding. involving the question of
the constitutionality of the so-called
Worlds Fair bill. The last Legislature
passed an Act appropriating the sum of
100000 to pay the expenses of maintain
ing an exhibit of the products of the
State of California, and for the purpose of
properly representing the State at the
Worlds Columbian Exposition TO be
held in Chicago in 1893, and also provid-
ing for the appointment of seven Com
miSSioners, one each from the Con-
greSsional Districts of the State, who
should constitute the Worlds Fair Com
mission. At the time of the passage of
this Act by the Legislature, there was
and still is a wide divergence of opinion
both as to the policy of the Act and as to
its constitutionality. In accordance with
the provisions of the Act the Governor
appointed the requisite number of Com
mlSSloners, who have given the neces-
sary bonds and have proceeded vigor-
ously upon the discharge of their duties
rs such Commissioners. Among other
items of expense is one of SS5 for rent of
an office used by the California Worlds
Fair Commission.
Demand was made by the commission
on the State Controller for warrant on
the Treasurer to pay this amount, which
the Controller refused to issue. The
Worlds Fair Commission then COM
menced q proceeding in mandamus to
compel E. z. Colgan, State Controller, to
issue the said warrant, and the case is
now before the Supreme Court upon a
demurrer to plaintiffs petition.
The point relied upon by defendant, in
brief lately filed, is that the Act of the
Legislature creating the commission and
granting the appropriation is unconsti-
tutlonal, and cites Article ", Section %,
of the State Constitution, viz:
No money shall eUer be appropriated
or drawn from the State Treasury for the
use Tor beneft) of any corporation, asso-
citation, asylum or hospital, or any other
institution not under the ercEuSiVe man
agement and control ofthe State as a State
institution, nor shall any grant or do71o-
ton ofproperty ever be made thereto by
the State"
Article ", Section 81. The Legisla-
ture shall have no power to give or lend
the credit of the State in aid of any per-
son, association or corporation, whether
municipal or otherwise, or to pledge the
credit thereof in any manner whatever
for the payment of liabilities of any in
dIyldual, association, municipal or other
corporation whatever, nor shall at hare the
poger to make any gift, or authorize the
making of any gift, of any public money
or thing Of value to any indiUldltdI, mu-
nlclpal, or other corporation, whatever"
Article ", Section 81. The Legisla-
tlre shall have no power to pay
OF authorize the payment of any claim
hereafter created against the State -
under any agreement or contract made
without express authority of law, and
all such unauthorized agreements or con-
tracts shall be null and void"
The italics are ours.
The defendant contends that the legis-
laflUn o. iG tpR hT-f fl,n
provisions of the Constitution for three
reasons:
First-The management and control
and the ''work and obiect'' in view are
not exclusively in the State as a State in
stitution.
Second-This Act carried out according
TO its own terms aids private corpora
ton.
Third-,The use of the appropriation is
not public use.
In support of the first contention de-
1endant urges:
the Worlds Fair in effect says that the
California Commission cannot exclu-
sively or at all control and manage her
exhibits or her products in the Column
blan Exposition, to do which the $500. 900
was appropriated-but that under said
Act Of Congress the National Commission
viii have almost complete control of the
exhibition, prepare and classify exhibits,
determine the plan and scope of the exhi-
bition, and generally have charge of all
intercourse with the exhibitors and the
representatives of foreign nations.
That the National Commission and the
California Commission cannot each at
the same time have exclusive control
and management of the California ex-
hlblt, and tor that reason alone the Act is
plainly unconstitutional.
That the commission must do large
of itC % h.
limits.
That California, under the guise of ex-
pending money for State institution, is
going TO expend it under three authori-
ties: /. General laws of Illinois, 9. Tn
der the laws and regulations of Congress.
3. Under the bylaw powers of a private
Illinois corporation, itself subject to the
local Legislatures future control.
In support OF the second point made by
defendant, that this Act. carried out ac-
cording TO its own terms, aids private
corporation" defendant argues:
That there is a private corporation in
Chicago which virtually controls the
Worlds Fair.
That this corporation will control us
as exhibitors, and then asks and answers
the pertinent question, WHO can control
this Illinois corporation?' Nobody
but its Directors and the Legislature
there
That there is no means of knowing or
compelling this Iprivate corporation of
raising and expending the S10,OO0, 600
called for by the Act of Congress.
That the California Commission, by
obtaining the consent of the National
Commission to select a site for their build
ing, have thus fairly conceded the supe-
rior authority of the National Commis-
sion.
IN support of the third contention of
the defendant-"the use OF the appropria-
lG hi tp
taxation can only be for a public use.
The right to tax depends upon the ulti-
mate use, purpose and object for which
the fund is raised. While it may be true.
as contended for by plaintiff, that State
advertisement is desirable and that the
ultimate object of this expenditure is to
call attention to the resources, greatness,
grandeur and possibilities of our State,
still the States money can only be used
in aid of public project-an object which
is within the purposes for which govern
ments are established-and that the ex-
peoples money would be an arbitrary
exercise of power-a violation of the
constitutional rights of those from whom
the money is taken, and an unjustifiable
usurpation.
THE COMMISSIONERS SIDE.
The plaintiff contends that the Act of
the Legislature creating the commission
and appropriating 100000 for the pur-
poses therein mentioned is constitutional.
That the Legislature has the same un-
limited power of legislation that resides
In the British Parliament except as re-
strained by the provisions of the State
and Federal Constitutions.
That the Act certainly does not violate
tho provisions dissection 81 of Article "
OF the Constitution.
That the Legislature has not loaned the
credlt 1f the State in aid of any person or