Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1898-10-28

The case before us is stronger than
the Dowagiac case. In that cas-" moth.
ing was said as To how the expenses
were To be paid, and there Is some force
in the suggestion that a voter must
look To the b ldy of the act To iind what
the provision was for raising taxes,
but IN this case he would see by the
title that the state had provided hy the
last part OF title how the improvement
was to be paid tor q. c) And to
authorize an appropriation Of land
therefore Certainly, he might say,
Il have no concern with the matter OF
pay, the state is making an Internal
improvement and paying for it as pro
vided by the constitution, namely, APP
preparation swamp lands"
think this title was clearly mislead-
ing.
This question is not new. Ia 1868,
the Supreme Court in the case of Ryer-
son VS.. Utley, 10 Mich. 269, passed up
on the same question where the title
was as follows: IAN act TO provide
for the preservation of the Muskegon
River improvement, and for other Dur-
poses"
The Court, Judge Cooley writing
the opinion says, among other things:
The title TO the act would apprise
neither the legislature nor the public,
that it covered provisions under which
a large sum was to be collected and
disbursed to pay for the original work,
the words, other purposes can have
no force whatever under the constltu
tioual provision which has been quoted.
1t would seem II, lhough The matter
was made clear enough by those decls-
ions.
Bu' the other question That the state
cannot engage in this work only 50 far
as 70 appropriate the land, and cannot
levy a tax for an Internal improvement
is 10 my mind as clear As Tie foregoing.
Ia both Of the case> ahov" cited this
question was also discussed. d in
both. the same conclusion was reached
In the ease of Anderson V Hill above
cited t'r Court held: "A Law passed
10 aulhorz such proceeding 5 un-
constitutional 1t may br conceded
that the strengthening and deepening
Of the channel of the Dowlgiac river
would ho conducive 10 the public
health. .,od ,- would be advantageous
10 the roads leading acroS, the swamp
aud very much lessen the expense Of
keeping such highways in repair; yet
all tins does not obylate the cous'itu
lional objections to the statute under
which this act was levied, aud The rem.
edy for existing eyils must be sought
in some other direction. "
Many other cases may be cited but,
they All point TO the same conclusion.
But tins very Maple river deepening
and widening proposition has once been
before the Supreme Court, and it seems
to me that the question at issue here
was there decided so plainly and every
point SO completely covered that no
other case is needed to settle this. Act
No "a laws of 1895 was for this same
object on this same river It's title was
af follows: lin act nj king an appro-
priation of swamp lands 20 aid the
county of Grauot in improving the
channel Of Maple river, and 10 author
ize a tax to complete the same, and IT,
repeal act No50 of the session laws Of
1881, entitled, AN Act 10 authorize
the Board of Control of State Swamp
Lahds to make All appropriation Of
swamp lands To remove bars and OBJ
ST. nc ion $ in Maple river in the counties
OF Clinton and Gratiot, approved March
26, 1881.
The Court in that case held the pro-
ceedings void, but went further and
considered the question of the title and
the provisions of the constitution hold
ing that the state could not engage in
this work, and in any way levy tax.
need only quote from the concluding
words of the opinion. IS Mich. page
81: 1.-The act violates the provision of
the constitution, article IA, section 8,
that, The state shall not be a party to
or interested In any work Of internal
improvement, nor engaged in carrying
on such work. except in the expendi-
ture of grants to the state of land or
other property"