Court Opinion

ID: 7816629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:38:40.813003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:37.187849
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., (dissenting). Our earlier opinions have drawn a reasonably clear distinction between a State purpose and a county purpose. The most comprehensive discussion appears in Cotham v. Coffman, 111 Ark. 108, 163 S.W. 1183, which involved a statute requiring a county to contribute to the payment of a circuit judge’s- salary. In holding the statute unconstitutional we used this language: “It is to our minds clear that the ‘county purpose’ referred to in the Constitution means some purpose peculiarly within the province, as distinguished from those. general purposes left to the' State at large- — such, for instance, as for building bridges, courthouses, jails, taking care of the poor, making public roads, etc. ... It is true that some of these county purposes, such as building courthouses and jails inure equally to the benefit of the State, but it is well understood that these things are provided for by the county. We think that the purpose can not, in the sense of the Constitution, be both a State and county purpose. It must be one or the other. . . . A State purpose must be accomplished by State taxation, a county purpose by county taxation, or a public purpose for any inferior district by taxation of such district. This is not only just, but it is essential.” The Gotham case was followed in Fort Smith Dist. of Sebastian County v. Eberle, 125 Ark. 350, 188 S.W. 821, where an act requiring a county to pay the salary of a State-appointed local registrar was declared to be unconstitutional. Again, in Johnson v. Donham, 191 Ark. 192, 84 S.W. 2d 374, we held that Pulaski county could not on its own initiative purchase a law library for the prosecuting attorney. That case involved a district that embraced only two counties, Pulaski and Perry. Since the population of the former was more than ten times that of the latter, it is evident that Pulaski county would actually have received almost the entire benefit from the proposed library. It was nevertheless our conclusion that the appropriation was not for a county purpose. In the case at bar the only fact indicating that Arkansas Post is of peculiar interest to Arkansas county is its geographical location. Ever since the enactment of Act 57 of 1929 Arkansas Post has been a State park, maintained at State expense. The museum now in controversy has also been a State-supported facility. Of course it cannot be doubted that a former State capital is of historical importance to the State as a whole. That the park is being converted into a National Monument demonstrates that its preservation is of value to the nation as well. The proof shows that the acquisition of this museum will cost the county taxpayers $60,000, to be paid for in two years. There is also the matter of maintenance for the indefinite future. -Neither the record nor the briefs indicate that the museum will attract any tourists who would not be brought to the county anyway by the National Monument alone. If, as we have held, a county cannot constitutionally contribute to the support of localized State functions from which the citizens of the county unquestionably derive a direct benefit, it seems to me that the constitution also forbids the use of county taxes for the support of a State park or a National Monument.