Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/121

 counties in which they reside, all the adjudications of the courts, state and federal, upon this subject, could be marshaled as precedents in support of any taxation, however onerous, which might become necessary for their support. But is it not competent for the legislature, representing the tax-payers, in the exercise of its discretion, and within the limits of county indebtedness prescribed by the state constitution to clothe county commissioners with authority to be exercised at their discretion, to make small loans, secured by prospective crops, to those whose condition is so impoverished and desperate as to reasonably justify the fear that, unless they receive help, they and their families will become a charge upon the counties in which they live?

We have carefully examined the authorities above cited, and many others of similar import, and while fully assenting to the principles enunciated by the cases, viz., that all taxation must be for a public purpose, we do not, with the single exception of the Kansas case, regard them as parallel cases, and applicable to the question presented in the case at bar. As we view the matter, the tax in question is for a public purpose, i. e., a tax for the “necessary support of the poor.” The case of State v. Osawkee Tp., supra, asserts a doctrine which would defeat the tax in question. This court has great respect for the court which promulgated that decision, and the most sincere admiraationadmiration [sic] for the distinguished jurist now upon the supreme bench of the nation, who wrote the opinion in that case. Nevertheless we cannot yield our assent to the reasoning of the case, leading to the conclusion that a loan of aid to an impoverished class, not yet in the poor house, is necessarily a tax for a private purpose. In our view, it is not certain, or even probable, in the light of subsequent experience in the west, that the court of last resort in the state of Kansas would enunciate the doctrine of that case at the present day. The decision was made fifteen years ago. While the fundamental principles which underlie legislation and taxation have not changed in the interval, it is also true that the development of the western states has been attended with difficulties and adverse conditions which have made it necessary to broaden the application of fundamental principles to meet the new necessities of those states. Under