The record-union., 1891-09-12

thorized to expend the money when
they have entered into contracts for the
State for its benefit, and have received
valuable consideration. Upon such con-
tracts they are to pay the money.
That the State becomes the owner of
the materials and the buildings to be
erected to exhibit the whole products of
California.
The display is also under State control,
so far as the Legislature has chosen TO en-
! act, and where not so it certainly may be
| subjected to such absolute control when
ever the Legislature chooses.
| This commission is not created for Pc
cuniary profit, but for the benefit of the
State The Commissioners are simply
the agents of the State for making con-
| tracts on the part of the State and for dis
| bursing the money of the State upon
such contracts for the State.
The objection made to the expenditure
of the money in question could equally
well be made to the expenditure of all
moneys appropriated for the maintenance
of State institutions, prisons, asylums,
| etc.
AS to the contention of defendant that
the State cannot own, control or manage
an institution outside of the State, the
commission urges that this State and all
| States have at all times and must neces-
sarily carry on institutions outside of the
State.
That the State has sent an agent to
Australia to procure parasites for the pro-
lection of fruit trees.
That physicians are sent out of the
State to conventions of health officers of
the various States to ascertain the best
mode of treating epidemic diseases.
That these Acts and appropriations have
never been questioned, Notwithstanding
all the powers of these various State
agents have been exercised outside of the
State.
The plaintiff urges that this appropria-
ton is not gift, and that the State has
the undoubted right to eXpend money to
display its products.
That there is nothing in the argument
erly expended. The courts will presume
! that every State officer will perform his
duty according to law.
The chief objection made to the Acc is
that the building will be erected ON land
not owned by the State. In answer to
this the Supreme Court of this State, in
McCauley VS.. Brooks Is Cal. ii, has de-
cided that there is nothing in the Consti-
tuition prohibiting the State from erecting
building on leased ground, hence the
court must presume that the Commits
sioners will lease or obtain right to oc-
cupy space in Chicago at such feasible
and practicable point as they may select
1OT INC cldGS DulIulnP. Inc state VIII
own the building, and may remove the
| same at the termination of the exposition.
This Act is not special legislation, and
not in violation of any Of the provisions
! Of Section % of Article ". of the Consti-
tuition. The appropriation is for the
State, not for any individual. Never be-
fore did anyone contend that an appro-
priation to State Fair was special Iegis-
lation. The expenditure is for the bene-
fit of the State
The brief of the Attorney-General,
from which this argument for the plant
if is largely taken, shows that very
large proportion of the States of the
Union have appropriated large sums for
the very purpose Of making State exhib-
its at the Worlds Fair.
In the discussion of this case each
party has cited numerous and well-con-
sidered authorities in support of the va
rious positions assumed by them.
| While the amount at stake in this pro-
ceeding is a very insignificant one, still
upon the decision of this case rests the
validity OF the Act of the Legislature
creating the commission, and appropri-
ating money for the California State ex-
hibit at the Worlds Columbian Exhibi-
ton. The decision of the Supreme Court
will be awaited with anxiety by many,
and with much curiosity and interest by
| all.