The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-12-26
PUBLIC MONEYS.

new attempt Of State legislature TO
give away public money by statute 10 set
forth In tho decision Of the Supreme Court
OF Georgia in Smith -s, Fuller t6s s. r., III.
in which the court held that where county
treasurer had embeyyled funds and judg.
ment had been obtained against him and the
sureties on His offfcial bond and the latter
made payments partly extinguishing the
Indebtedness tho General Assembly had no
power To pass a law authorizing the county
authorities 10 refund TO the suretes any
and all sums which they had paid except
such amounts as had been expended In the
prosecution Of the principal and that the
statute was void. The Court said:
II the Legislature would not have the right TO
give from the treasury % the State 4 portion Of
Its FUNDS 10 surrtics who had paid In such money.
certainly they could not make such gift from
the county treasury. The funds OF q county zen.
orally arise from TAXATION ~ whrn d-fauIuns
treasurer embez,lcs such funds and when his
sureties, against whom q Judgmep. has been
dercd on the bond. pay portion Of the Indebted.
ness against them the Legislature can require
the county 10 give IL back To them the taxpayers
may have To pay taars again to replace tho funds
90 lost and needed for public purposes and In
effect. be taxed TO make \ gift TO the surctiss.
The decision was made with particular
reference. to a clause in the Georgia Cons.i-
tuition expressly providing that tho General
Assembly shall NOT. by vote resolution or
order. grant any donation or annuity to any
person. corporation or association. Similar
provisions are contained in tho statutes
OF many other States 4 commcn, by the
I .Ssr York Lar Journal says that there
does not seem 20 be any answer TO tho arsn-
menr o! the Georgia court thar a claim OF
surety 10 be reimbursed for an amount he
/ had paid upon a defaulting officials bond
is not based upon meritoriou- cOnsidera-
ZION. since repayment would NOT constitute
| compensation but would amount 70 a
mere xrsfuhy. which has been held similarly
! by shr Supreme Court Of Indiana III Mct'lel-
| land ~ state r3s Ind 32i
The leading case on thy subject has been
Loan Association vs. Topeka 30 Wall
$3.50. where II was laid down that inherently
and independently Of express constitu-
'iOnal orz'atu'ory rest riCtion thee IL a lin
itation upon the right Of taxation, that IL
can only b. Used in aid Of a public object
and cannot b. applied To aid private enter
pri-eS for IN" benefit Of indiy duala. though
in a remot. or collateral way the local public
NAV he benefited In 'hi- case the court
said
To-Day with one hand the power NJ the Govern
mrn' on the property of the citizen and with he
other besto~ II upon favored individuals 10 aid
private enterprises and build up private for
tune i none the less robbery because IL 10 don.
under the forms Of lsw and l. called taxation
rms ~ no' ieHi,h""n. ~ Nh h"'sce under iss
N''\e '''"N
decision upon which the bonding com
PAM IN the Georgia case relied to some o. g.
tent IN "ontendinz that the General Assem-
bly, had IN. power TO pass the statute IN
question was 'oIe Va state Of New York
, 'l"2 y as. upholding the power OF tho
IeEisiatnr" I" provid. for m" naymant Of
claims hv an appropriate tribunal wh.r.
| although IN" legal Inability NAV not be en-