Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1902-05-21

maintained; that quarantine and san
itary laws, appropriations to prevent
the spread Of tuberculosis among
cattle, aud other diseases among
other animals: to inspect. treat and
eradicate diseases among men such
as smallpox, diptheria, yellow fever,
etc; providing for county exhibit
tons at State and other expositions;
establishing and maintaining agri-
cultural stations, and many other
similar purposes and objects, have
been sustained as being public in
their nature, although only u small
minority of the people may appear
to be directly benefited by them.
1t seems to me therefore, to be
very clear that an appropriation to
prevent the San Jose scale is for a
public purpose. although only the
growers Of fruit may be Immediately
and directly interested in it. If
am right in this conclusion, then
certainly the Board HAS THE
POWER under the Act Of the Legis-
latnre to make the appropriation,
whether it is bound to do so or not.
and in their official report they say
that recognizing the need of imme-
dia'e action" 10y them, it is only
because they are advised that they
have not the power, that they refuse
to make the appropriation.
Whether the Board can be COM
PEELED by the Legislature to
make such an appropriation is a
different matter, and a harder ques-
ton to answer 1t is quite clear
that the authorities of any county
or city may bc compelled to levy
taxes aud make appropriations for
all the ordinary purposes Of city or
county government. such as public
streets, roads. iailS. court. houses, etc.
and think also for the manifold |
sanitary objects entrusted 20 Boards
of Health. and it would seem to
follow from the rule that the Legis-
lature has every power not forbidden
TO it by the constitution. and because
it may by its own will. make aud
uumake cities and counties that it
may compel municipal and county
authorities TO levy taxes and make
appropriations for any purpose for
which the Legislature itself may
make them under the constitution.
The distinction made by the
decided cases seems to me to be that
the State may not compel municipal
authorities to make appropriations
for merely local objects intended as
special advantages to the community
alone, nor may it set an exact meas
ure for the amount Of appropria-
tions for the ordinary purposes of
municipal government which it may
compel. But it may compel the
municipality to contribute Its share
to any object of public benefit
which the Legislature has the right
to, and does appropriate money for,
and by doing which, it thus declares
to be a public and not private pur-
pose.
The weight of authority therefore,
Is IN favor of the view that in such
a case rs this, the Legislature has
the power to compel the Board of Su-
pervisors to make the appropriation.
But, nevertheless, | am conscious of
an instructive aversion to the idea
that except in matters pertaining to
the plain requirements of municipal
government, the discretion of the
city%ond town authorities ought to
be at the mercy of legislative major
tiles composed of persons who are
strangers to the communities over
which they propose to enact compul-
sorry legislation. Inasmuch as that
question in its relations to such
subject as this has never been before
the Virginia Court of Appeals, it is
at least matter Of doubt as to
whether it would hold with what |
take to be the weight of authority in
other States, and would sanction the
power of the Legislature to COM
PEI an appropriation of this nature.
But in addition to this doubt |
observe that the law makes no
provision as to the amount that shall
be appropriated, but leaves that to
the discretion of the Board, and
though it says it shall be such
amount as is needed for the treat
ment and eradication of the pest, if
the Board chooses to fix an amount
which the petitioners do not consider
adequate, / do not see how the Court
can change it. After all, therefore,