Court Opinion

ID: 9865236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:28:08.237445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:01.860340
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Burke
dissenting.
It is difficult to demonstrate the obvious. I think the Constitution speaks for itself in lucid language. Section 7, article XXIV (the Old Age Pension Amendment) reads: “All the moneys deposited in the Old Age Pension Fund shall remain inviolate for the purposes for which created, and no part thereof shall be transferred to any other fund, or used or appropriated for any other *542purpose ” To me it is inconceivable that this claim for $10,000 attorneys’ fees would be allowed if the section read “No part thereof shall be used for attorneys’ fees or any other purpose.” Certainly the payment of attorneys’ fees was not one of the purposes for which the fund was created. We have now said that part of the fund shall be used therefor. That seems to me a direct violation of a plain prohibition of the Constitution.
I think it is fundamental that taxes can be levied and collected only for public purposes. The people have declared by their most solemn act, an amendment of their Constitution, that payment by the state of old age pensions to certain qualified persons is for the benefit of the whole people. The money is collected by public law, deposited with a public official and can only be paid out to private persons as provided by statute. Until so paid I think it remains the money of the state. Otherwise these taxes are levied and collected for a private purpose and while held by the treasurer are private property. If so and the treasurer is rightfully in custody and disburses the money as commanded by the statute or judicial mandate, how can any obligation rest upon the state to replace it? Yet the amendment provides that a minimum of $45 per month shall be paid to those qualified. If then this depletion of the fund by $10,000 reduces the available amount to a point where .the payment commanded can not be made (that has happened in the past and could happen again) the state is directed by the Constitution to make good the deficit. The inevitable conclusion, as it appears to me, is that the fund is the fund of the state. If one sells supplies to a county it is for the public benefit that he be paid, but he owns no part of the fund from which payment will be made. It is provided by taxation and remains the property of the county until disbursed. If there be no money in the fund from which payment is ordinarily made the county must supply it from other sources. These attorneys have saved nothing to the state. The *543result of their activity is simply that money is taken out of one of the state’s pockets and put in another. The state has benefitted no penny. Those who profit by a salvage are alone liable for the expense thereof. Whoever attempts to get any portion of this Old Age Pension Fund, save as the statutory beneficiaries of its levy and collection, can do so only by an action against the state. This, I think, is such an action and it is forestalled by the recognized rule that you can not sue a sovereignty.
For the foregoing reasons I dissent.