Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-05-19
City Solicitors Reply
As To Right Of City To
Maintain Band Concerts

Iaws Of State Which Could Be
Construed to Permit the Power OF
Taxation to Be Used to Raise
Money for This Purpose
The reply submitted by City
Solicitor Melvin e. Sawtelle on the
right of the city to maintain band
concerts this summer, sets forth to
some extent the purposes for which
a municipality may raise money,
showing that the clear intent OF the
law is to restrict the exercise OF the
power of taxation to the objects
named in the statutes.
At the April meeting of the Au-
gusta City Council, Alderman Sturgis
Randall introduced an order provid-
ing that the City Government make
an appropriation from the contingent
fund to defray the expenses of public
band concerts during the 10 weeks
commencing the 18th Of June, con-
certs to be held once a week at such
places as shall be appointed by the
mayor. 1t was voted to submit the
order to the city solicitor for his
opinion as to its legal aspect.
The reply of City Solicitor Saw
telle was received at the May ses-
sion of the City Council the city
solicitor pointing out that he did not
find any authority in the laws of the
State which could be construed to
permit the power of taxation to be
used to raise money to defray the
expenses OF band concerts and that
he therefore would recommend that
the order be not passed. The order
did not receive passage at the meet
ing. City Solicitor Sawtelle's reply
was as follows:
ITO the Honorable Mayor and
City Council of the City of Augusta:
Regarding the order for band
concerts during the summer, at the
expense Of the city, which was re-
ferrsd to me at the last meeting Of
the City Council for opinion as to
the right of the city to maintain
band concerts, l beg to reply:
Il. The city has no money except
such as it takes by way of taxation
It's authority to appropriate money
and assess taxes is found in the State
Constitution, the statutes of the
State and the city charter, which
latter provides in Sec as follows:
The City Council shall not vote, as
sess or appropriate any money for an
object or purpose for which the town
of Augusta is not authorized to vote,
assess, and appropriate money, ex-
cept for such purposes as are au-
thorized by this act Meaning that
Augusta can only appropriate for
purposes set forth in the revised
statutes. These purposes as set
forth in r. S., G. 4, Sec. 81 are as
follows: The voters at a legal town
meeting may raise the necessary
sums for the support of schools and
the poor. making and repairing high
ways, town ways and bridges; and
sprinkling streets; acquiring by pur-
chase or otherwise suitable sites, or
suitable sites and buildings, or erect
ing buildings for free public libra
ries; purchasing and fencing bury
ing grounds: maintaining private
burying grounds established before
1880; purchasing or building and re-
pairing a hearse and hearse house
for the exclusive use of it's citizens:
ana Tor other necessary town
charges By Sec. So, cities and
towns are allowed to raise money to
procure the writing and publication
OF their histories, to celebrate any
centennial or other anniversary of
their settlement or incorporation: to
defray the expenses of the observance
OF Memorial Day, Firemen's Memoir
lal Sunday, and Of Old Home Week
and sum not exceeding $4,000 for n
soldiers memorial. They may also
raise money for discriminating insect
pests
Towns can appropriate moneys de-
rived from taxation only to the DUR
poses for which they are authorized
by law to assess and collect them.
The legislature has determined the
purposes or uses for which money
may be granted, assessed and COL
lected; and If it can be appropriated
to different purposes after it has been
collected, then the limitation upon
the assessment and collection Of il
becomes Intellectual and void ..
The intention Of the limitation was
to prevent money from being as
sessed and collected for other objects
tnan those named in the laws: and
this intention cannot be defeated nv
misapplication of the money by
way Of appropriation.
Hooper VS.. Emery IA Me. s75.
In so Me. sos the justices of the
supreme Judicial court of Maine in
answering questions submitted bv
the governor of the State held that
the words other necessary town
charges,' did not constitute a new
and distinct grant of indefinite and
unlimited power to raise money for
any purpose whatsoever, at the will
and pleasure Of the majority. Thew
only embrace all incidental expenses
arising directly or indirectly in the
que and legitimate exercise of the
various powers conferred by stat
ute. They further held that towns
could not transcend their authority
ana incur expenses in no way arising
IN It's exercise, nor could they raise
money for the purpose of re-dis-
trlbuting 1t among their citizens or
10 bestow 1t by way of gift to favor
ed individuals.
q. have not undertaken to set
Aorth all the purposes for which a
municipality may raise money but
enough to show that the clear intent
Oh the law is to restrict the exercise
Nn@r