The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-10-06

Justice. that It's process and its Jurisdiction
lot many purposes extended over the entire
stAte, tnat the judges were competent to and
DID, In certain cases, hold court in other dis
trtcts; and that the court was open to citi-
zens OF all other districts to bring In 1t any
district.
Salaries WOULD VARY.
1t is obvious that in such case the amount
Of judges salaries payable In the various
districts would vary and that one district
might De required, to pay, that Is to raise by
taxation, much larger sum In proportion to
It's taxable valuation than another district
Tor the salary Of its Judges. But this would
furnish no objection to the law.
me city OF st. Paul has for years been re-
CURED to maintain g. municipal court and
pay thel salaries of its judges, though the
court was open to- every citizen of the state
1t was never held that the law requiring the
city to maintain such court was unconstitu-
tl9nal because the city. while It paid the
1t is enough that, the city In such case,
and the county in'lthis case, receives a bene-
ft. or has an interest. not common to the
whole state. This being SO, the question
whether all, or, If part, what part, OF the
expense shall be laid on the city or county.
Is a matter wholly for the determination Of
the legislature. In this case the !sglslatuEe
has determined, and it's determination IN
itself is not open to question, that $1,000 Is
no more than adequate compensation for a
determined, and this determination is not
open to question, that the special benefit and
interest of the county in having competent
paying $1,000 of this $1,000 should be i'm
posed upon the county.
The plaintiff contends, however, that such
legislation Is IN violation of art. 1 of sec. 9
Of the state constitution requiring all taxes
to be raised In the state to be as nearly
equal as may be. and is in eontraVention Of Of
erty shall not be taken for public use with
out just compensation therefor first paid or
secured. The court is of the opinion that
| these provisions are not applicable to the
| questions involved
RATES OF TAXATION.
1t may be conceded generally that when the
| purpose for which tax is levied is wholly
| of general concern to the whole state, and no
| one locality derives or can derive any more
| benefit from carrying out that purpose, the
burden or such tax must be laid upon the
state at large. And, conversely, when single
| locality is alone interested in or benefited by
carrying out that purpose, the tax should be
| laid that locality alone This rule Is
| everywhere recognized, as well where it il
not declared in the state constitution as where
| 1t Is made the subject of special provision
| therein, and the provisions cited from oul
| constitution are at most merely declaration
| of the rule, so far as they have any bearing
| in this case.
And so it is very plain that the Legislature
| could not require single county to pay the
entire salary of the governor, nor, on the
| other hand could the legislature provide that
the local expenses of a single county or city
should be paid by the state, all other cities
| and counties being left to pay their own eX-
! penses by means of local taxation.
! But between these extremes cases are many
| instances where the law might properly pro-
vide that the public expenditure should be
borne either by general taxation by local
| taxation, or partly by state or partly by local
| taxation. And there are many cases where
while the purposes is general one affecting tn;
| whole state, county or district may
| have special interest in or receive a special
| benefit from the carrying out of that purpose
| In such 1t is competent for the legisa
ture to provide that besides its appropriation
| Of a general state tax for such purposes, such
county or district shall pay further sum, tc
be raised by local taxation such sum to b.
determined by the legislature in view of thu
existence OF such special interest or benefit.
II there is absolutely no such interest OF
benefit, then such legislative apportionmen
OF the burden would rest upon mere pretenst
and would be void; but, in a case where the
legislature could, any reasonable view o
/ the facts, determine that there was a specia
benefit or interest, Its determination on tha
point Is conclusive on the courts; and, in like
manner, the apportionment of the burden o.
a tax upon the whole state and the locality
! SO found by 1t to be especially interested Of
benefited, Is a governmental question, ad
/ dressed to the discretion OF the legislature
whose determination the courts will not at
tempt to review unless in a case so extreme
as to amount to a tyrannical abuse Of such
discretion. The power of the legislature o.
this state thus to apportion public burden!
between larger and smaller tax district Il
not taken away by the constitutional prov
sions as to equality. That does not prescrib,
absolutely in every or any particular, fol
such equality is unattainabie.