Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The question of the constitutionality of government aid to the needy classes in the community may arise because of the existence of the rule which forbids the exercise of the power of taxation for any but a public purpose.
The general principle that the purposes for which this power may be exercised must be public is perfectly clear, but the principle is to be applied in the light of our history. Thus from a very early time in the history of both England and this country the taxing power had been used to provide funds for the support of the poor. The poor laws, as they were called, have been regarded as constitutional notwithstanding the general rule of constitutional law to which allusion has been made.
As new conditions have appeared to make necessary attempts on the part of the legislature to accord aid to various classes of individuals in the community, the courts have been called upon to determine whether such attempts are forbidden by the principle requiring that the purpose of the legislature shall have been public or whether they fairly come under the exception to the rule which has been shown always to have existed.
1 See Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112–155.
2 See also Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, for a recognition of the principle that varying conditions of population may under the 14th amendment be subjected to different treatment by the states.
3 Lucas Co. v. State, 75 Ohio St. 114; see also Wisconsin Keely Inst. Co. v. Milwaukee Co., 95 Wis. 153, where a payment to a private corporation for the cure of an indigent drunkard was declared to be improper. But see Mayor v. Keely Inst., 81 Md. 106; In re House, 46 Pac. (Col.) 117; and White v. Inebriates Home, 141 N. Y. 123.
4 See for example Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall, 689.
5 See e. g. Commonwealth v. Walton, 182 Pa. St. 373.
6 See e. g. In the Matter of Mahon, 171 N. Y. 263.
7 See State v. Ziegenhein, 144 Mo. 283.
8 See also State v. Osawkee Township, 14 Kan. 418, which declared the grant of aid to poor farmers to purchase grain for seed and feed, in districts affected by drouth was not a public purpose. This case was decided in 1875, only two years after Lowell v. Boston. Cf. William Deering Co. v. Peterson, 75 Minn. 118.
9 See e. g. Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310; Blair v. Cummings Co., 111 U. S. 363. These cases are interesting as showing how closely the Supreme Court follows the decisions of State courts as to what are public purposes and therefore proper purposes for taxation in their respective states, thus recognizing large powers of social coöperation in local communities.
10 North Dakota v. Nelson Co., 1 N. D. 88.
11 Such are the Keely Cure cases decided in Wisconsin, e. g. Wisconsin Keely Inst. Co. v. Milwaukee Co., 95 Wis. 153.
12 Mayor v. Keely Inst. 81 Md. 106; In re House, 46 Pac. (Col) 117; White v. Inebriates' Home, 141 N. Y. 123; Shepherd's Fold v. New York, 96 N. Y. 137.
13 The recent case upholding the constitutionality of a law providing for a bank depositors' guaranty fund takes a long step in the direction of upholding a scheme of compulsory insurance. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 31 S. C. R. 186.
14 Walton v. Cotton, 19 Howard 355; United States v. Teller, 107 U. S. 64.
15 See e. g. Frisbie v. United States, 157 U. S. 160.
16 United States v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 427.
17 Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.