Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/307

 BMITH V. CITY or FOND DtJ hkO. ^93 �"The common council have authority to contract debts to any amount; Impose taxes for any and all conceivable objecta and pui^oses ; embark the finances and credit of the city in any enterprise which, in the judgment o£ the common council, will contribute to the wealth, prosperity, or trade of the city, or promote the social and material condition of its citizens. There is np lim- itation, no restriction, imposed by the legislature upon the power of the cor- poration to run in debt or burden the people with taxes. If the common council deem it expedient, and a majority of the voters of the city will sanc- tion the policy, the city, in its corporate capacity, may carry on works of internai improvement at home or abroad, so that those works are calculated to stim- ulate the trade and increase the business of the city. No matter bow ruinons and oppressive these special taxes might be to the owners of real estate, or to the minority of the tax pay<ers, yet we do not see why, under this section of the charter, the common council and a majority of the qualifled voters might not compel the city to become a stockholder in a line of steamboats to run up and down the lakes for the transportation of freight and passengers ; subscribe for stock in railroads; improve harbors; open roads and build bridges, within or without the city limits ; erect and operate flouring mills ; keep hotels ; or, in short, embark in any mercantile, manufacturing, or commercial enterprise, which in the language of the charter, 'may be considered essential to pro- mote or secure the common interest of the city,' and pledge the resources and credit of the city for the repayment of all sums borrowed for these purposes, and impose taxes to meet the same." "Now," said the court further, "the question arises, can the legislature confer upon a municipal corporation such uhlimited power of taxation, such Unrestrained ability to contract 'lorporate indebtedness and mort gage the real estate of the city?" �Again, and after stating that the provision there under considera- tion conferred the power of taxation for other thau municipal pur- poses, the court remarked : �" It is a power to impose special taxes to any amount, or for any pnrpose whatever, which may be considered essential to promote or secure the -iom- mon intetest of the city. I do not think the legislature could confer uppp any municipal corporation such unlimited, stich absolute power of taxation. More especiallyis the legislature restrainedfrom conferring such power under a constitution which imposes upon it the duty, in organizing cities and vil- lages, to restrict their power of taxation, borrowing money, and contracting debts. * * * Can it confer upon a municipal corjxn-ation the right to impose taxes to any amount, and for any purpose ? AVe think not. And, therefore, when the legislature attempts to conter upon a municipal corpora- tion an unrestrieted power to levy taxes and raise money, aside from and above what may be necessary and proper to support the local goveriiment, and for legitimate municipal purposes, such unlimited grant of power must be held to be void. Otherwise, no force or eJiect is given to the provision of the constitution cited." �I have read bomewhat fully from the opinion in Poster v. City of Kenosha, because upon that case coausei for tiie city muiuly rely. ��� �