Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-06
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
tExcluBlvely for virglnian-Pllot)
CITY OF CONVICTION ". KEN
lucky.

CITY OF CONVICTION ". KEN
lucky.
Supreme Court OF the United States.
February 20. 1899.
NEITHER THE CHARTER OF A MU-
NICIPAL CORPORATION. NOR
ANY LEGISLATIVE ACT REGU-
LATING THE USE OF PROPERTY
HELD BY 1T FOR GOVERNMENT
AL OR PUBLIC PURPOSES. Is a
CONTRACT WITHIN THE MEAN
ING OF THE FEDERAL CONsTI-
TUITION.
This wns An action which involved
the validity OF the taxation by the State
of Kentucky of the water works of the
city of Covington. The legislature OF
Kentucky authorized the city of Cow
ihgton to build water works and one
section of the law provided that said
water works should be and remain for
ever exempt from state. city and coun-
ty tax. BY general law OF the State
all charters were subject to be amend
ed or repealed Mt the will of the Legie-
]ature, and the constitution of the
State exempted from taxation all pub
lie property used for public purpose.
nected with the said water works was
assessed for State taxes under certain
acts passed for that purpose and were
sold for the taxes. the State becoming
the purchaser. 1t then brought this
suit to recover possession Of the prop
erty SO purchased. The judgment be-
low was for the State and the city ap-
pealed. The Court says:
However much we may doubt the
6oundnesS of any Interpretation of the
State constitution implying that lands
and buildings are not public property
used for public purposes when owned
and used by municipal corporati lion
Tor the purpose, and only for the pur-
pose. of supplying that corporation and
It's people with water. and when the
net revenue from such property must
be applied In the improvement OF pub
lie ways, we must assume, In con-
formity with the judgment of the high
est court OF kentucky. that section ITO
Of the constitution of that Common
wealth cannot be construed as exempt
Ing the lands In question from taxation.
The fundamental question In the case
then is whether at the time OF the
adoption of that constitution the city OF
Covington had, In respect OF the lands
In question. any contract with the
Stale. the obligation of which could
not he impaired by any subsequent
statute or by the present constitution
or kentucky adopted In 1891. If the
exemption found in the act OF 1886 was
such contract, then 1t could not be
aitected by that constitution any more
than by Legislative enactment
We are of opinion that the exemption
from taxation embodied In the act did
not tie the hands OF the Common
wealth of Kentucky. so that Il could
not. by legislation. withdraw such ex-
emption and subject the property in
question to taxation. The act OF 1886
was passed subject to the provision In
general statute OF Kentucky above
referred to, that all statutes shall be
subject to amendment or repeal at the
VIII OF the legislature, unless n contrary
Intent be therein plainly expressed
II that act In any sense constituted q
contract between the city and the Com
monwealth, the reservation in an exist
ing general statute of the right to
amend or repeal ii was itself n part Of
that contract The city accepted the
act OF 1856 and acquired under 1t the
property taxed subject to that reserva-
ton. There was in that act no "plain-
ly expressed" intent never to amend
or to repeal 1t. Before n statute-par-
ticularly one relating to taxation
should be held to be irrepealable. or
not subject to amendment, an intent
not to repeal or amend must be SO
directly and Enthusiastically expressed as
10 leave no room for doubt; otherwise
the intent Is not plainly expressed 1t
is not so expressed when the existence
OF the intent arises only from inference
or conjecture.
municipal corporation is q public
instrumentality established to aid in
the administration of the affairs of the
state. Neither Its charter nor any
Legislative act regulating the use of
property held by 1t for governmental or
public purposes is a contract within the
meaning OF the Constitution of the
United States. If the legislature choose
to subject to taxation public property
held by municipal corporation of the
State for public purposes, the validity
II such legislation, so far as the ma
tional constitution Is concerned, could
not be questioned. The Judgment is af-
firmed.