Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/347

331 THE SUGAR BOUNTIES^ '331 rewards for the destruction of wild beasts and other public pests ; a pro- vision of this character being a mere police regulation. But the dis- crimination by the State between different classes of occupations, and the favoring of one at the expense of the rest, whether that one be farm- ing or banking, merchandising or milling, printing or railroading, is not legitimate legislation, and is an invasion of that equality of right and privilege which is a maxim in State government. When the door is once opened to it, there is no line at which we can stop and say with confidence that thus far we may go with safety and propriety, and no further. Every honest employment is honorable ; it is benefi- cial to the public ; it deserves encouragement. The more successful we ■ an make it, the more does it generally subserve the public good. But it is not the business of the State to make discriminations in favor of one class against another, or in favor of one employment against another. The State can have no favorites. Its business is to protect the industry of all, and to give all the benefit of equal laws. It cannot compel an unwilling minority to submit to taxation in order that it may keep upon its feet any business that cannot stand alone. Moreover, it is not a weak interest only that can give plausible reasons for public aid ; when the State once enters upon the business of subsidies, we shall not fail to discover that the strong and powerful interests are those most likely to control legislation, and that the weaker will be taxed to en- hance the profits of the stronger. The Wisconsin cases adopt the same view. In Attorney- General v. Eau Claire (37 Wis. 400), the facts were similar. An Act had been passed by the legislature authorizing the Common Council of the city of Eau Claire to construct a dam across the Chippewa river, and lease the same for private pur- poses, and to issue bonds to pay for the same. The Act was held unconstitutional. The court say : We cannot hesitate in holding, what was not questioned at the bar, that, if the statute under consideration grant power to the city to con- struct and maintain the dam for the purpose of leasing the water-power for manufacturing purposes, it is a power for a private and not a public use, and cannot be upheld. 1 The courts of Kansas are in accord. In State v. Osawkee (14 Kan. 418), the court was called to pass upon the validity of an Act (Stat. Kan., 1875, ch. 42) authorizing townships to issue bonds to provide the destitute citizens of certain townships with provisions and with grain for seed and feed. The act was called forth by a failure of the crops, partial or total, in many parts of the State, and entailing great suffering. The statute was held unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Brewer says : 1 Curtis v. Whipple, 24 Wis. 350; Mather v. Ottawa, 114 111. 659; Coates v. Camp- bell, 37 Minn. 498, accord.