388 
JOHN M. PARKER. 
in respect to cattle as to which there is a final determination 
that they are diseased, and therefore worthless for food and 
milk purposes, the bill provides that this fact shall be disre¬ 
garded in estimating the damage to the owner, although it is 
a fact which destroys their value. 
The Constitution (Chap, i, Sec. i, Art. 4) authorizes the 
legislature to impose taxes “ to be used and disposed of 
* * * f or f-j ie puPPc service.” The legislature, under our 
Constitution, has no right to take money by taxation from 
one man to enrich another ; and it is of no question how 
meritorious upon general consideration the position of the 
recipient may be. Money raised by taxation can only be 
used for public purposes.” 
Applying this principle to the bill in question, I am of the 
opinion that so far as it requires the payment of a fictitious 
value in all cases to the owners of cattle killed as diseased, 
and consequently worthless, it is an appropriation of public 
money for the benefit of individuals. It takes money from 
the common fund contributed by all citizens and confers it 
as a gift upon such owners of diseased cattle. If this is so, it 
is an unauthorixed exercise of the power of taxation. 
The Attorney-General then suggests: “That the legis¬ 
lature has the right to order such compensation as it deems 
reasonable to individuals for the inconvenience and annoy¬ 
ance of having their cattle seized and destroyed, and espe¬ 
cially upon suspicion and when it is not certain that they are 
tainted.” He then concludes, “ upon the foregoing princi¬ 
ples and upon such consideration as I have been able to give 
the matter in the brief time allotted me, I am constrained to 
advise your Excellency that the provisions of the bill in 
question, which provides that owners of cattle shall be paid 
full value thereof for food, and milk purposes, without taking 
into consideration the fact that the animal or carcass is at the 
time of taking infected with tuberculosis, are unconstitu¬ 
tional. 
These, in brief, are the principal points in Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral Knowlton’s letter to the Governor declaring certain sec¬ 
tions of the tuberculosis bill unconstitutional. After this 
