PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION. 613 



private property of one person for the private use of another 

 person." 



Particular care has also been taken by the Courts to close the 

 door against the possibility of making taxation subservient to any 

 private purpose by incorporating it with some public purpose : 



Public aid to private pui^poses can not be secured by yoking them to a 

 public purpose. And where the public and private jpurposes are attempted 

 to be aided by a single concession, the latter vitiate rather than the former 

 uphold the grant. The entire purpose or, if there are several, and no rule 

 of apportionment as to the application of the proceeds then all the pur- 

 poses must be public. Opinion of Justice Brewer, 23 Kansas, 745. 



The cases in which the above conclusions have been appar- 

 ently antagonized before the courts of the United States have 

 been numerous, and have related mainly to the right of the 

 Legislatures of the several States to levy taxes for purposes in 

 respect to which the paramount object i. e., for public or private 

 good was not clearly evident ; as for the construction of rail- 

 roads, the drainage of land, the promotion of sanitary measures, 

 the payment of bounties in aid of educational or charitable insti- 

 tutions whose property is owned by and whose policy is directed 

 by private individuals, religious sects, or corporations, and not by 

 the State, and the like. 



The question whether taxation by which aid was aiforded by 

 towns or counties to the building of railroads was for a public 

 purpose, has been especially brought to the attention of the 

 courts. State and Federal, in repeated instances ; and, although 

 the preponderance of opinion has been in the afiQrmative when 

 legislative authority has been previously granted, yet the deci- 

 sion of the courts has rarely been unanimous, and in some cases 

 has been adverse. Thus, in People vs. Township (20 Michigan, 

 452), an act of the Legislature of Michigan authorizing townships 

 to pledge their credit to aid in the construction of a railroad from 

 the city of Detroit to a suburban village was held void in a 

 remarkably able opinion by Justice Cooley. Again, in Whiting 

 vs. Sheboygan (25 Wisconsin, 157), an act of the Legislature of 

 Wisconsin authorizing the county of Fond du Lac to levy a tax, 

 the proceeds of which were to be given to aid the building of a 

 railroad from the city of Fond du Lac to the city of Ripon, was 

 also held by the court to be void. 



The argument in favor of the unconstitutionality or wrong- 

 fulness of the application of the proceeds of the taxation of the 

 people by States or municipalities for aiding the construction of 

 railroads has been, that they are built by corporations organized 

 mainly for the purpose of gain ; that they are under the control 

 of such corporations rather than that of the State ; and that the 

 taxes in question went to swell the profits of individuals, and did 



