Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/350

334 334 HAR YARD LA W RE VIE W. eminent, the prosecution of war, the national defence, any limita- tion is unsafe. The entire resources of the people should in some instances be at the disposal of the government. The power to tax is, therefore, the strongest, the most pervading, of all the powers of gov- ernment, reaching directly or indirectly to all classes of the people. This power can as readily be employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there is no implied limitation of the uses for which the power may be exercised. To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legis- lation. It is a decree under legislative forms. But in the case before us, in which the towns are authorized to contribute aid by way of taxa- tion to any class of manufacturers, there is no difficulty in holding that this is not such a public purpose as we have been considering. If it be said that a benefit results to the local public of a town Ify establishing manufactures, the same may be said of any other business or pursuit which employs capital or labor. The merchant, the mechanic, the inn- keeper, the banker, the builder, the steamboat- owner, are equally the promoters of the public good and equally deserving the aid of the citi- zen by forced contributions. No line can be drawn in favor of the manufacturer which would not open the coffers of the public treasury to the importunities of two-thirds of the business men of the city or town. The later cases in the United States courts adopt the same view of the law. In Parkersburg v. Brown ( 106 U. S. 487), an Act had been passed by the legislature of West Virginia authoriz- ing and empowering the authorities of the city of Parkersburg to issue bonds for the purpose of lending the same to manufacturers carrying on business in or near said city. This court held the Act void, saying, per Mr. Justice Blatchford : But we are of the opinion that, within the principles decided by this court in the case of Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, the bonds in question here are void. The Act of 1868 authorizes the bonds to be issued as the bonds of the city. The principal and interest are to be paid by the city. The bonds are to be lent to persons engaged in manufacturing. . . . It is taxation which takes the private property of one person for the private use of another person. In Cole v. LaGrange, 113 U. S. 1, the case turned on an Act passed by the legislature of Missouri authorizing the city of La- Grange, whenever two-thirds of the resident taxpayers signified their approval thereof at a special election, to levy a tax not ex- ceeding two per cent, per annum on the assessed valuation of the real and personal property in the city, to pay for a donation or