|
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />F
<br />
<br />ion
<br />fa- '~
<br />of j
<br />the
<br />:nt 1
<br />of ~..
<br />ili. ,
<br />,m- i{(
<br />~,
<br />ort it
<br /> in i
<br /> It
<br />.rts "
<br />i
<br />St. ~
<br /> to t
<br />iets
<br />,ed, .,
<br />fa- ..
<br />,',
<br /> ,'v
<br />c:k- ,
<br />~.
<br />a'1
<br />led .'
<br />the ,
<br />:.\,
<br />uilt J
<br />~ht.
<br /> }.
<br />1 is
<br />the "
<br />ha
<br />als,
<br /> of
<br />t a
<br />for
<br />,ted
<br /> of
<br />:ion
<br />,nal
<br />~5U.
<br />com
<br />lets
<br />mal
<br />:hat
<br />mal
<br />ned
<br />tiOD
<br />the
<br />lee-
<br />:on-
<br /> at-
<br />
<br />VlSINA y, F~EXAIf
<br />Cite u 88 N.W.!d U5
<br />
<br />Plaintiff contends that all three acts vio-
<br />late that portion of Mino.Const. art.. 4, ~
<br />33, M.S.A., which as far as material here
<br />reads:
<br />
<br />11" '" '" The legislature shaH pass
<br />no Jocal or special law '" ,., '" au-
<br />thorizing public taxation for ,a private
<br />purpOse" ;
<br />
<br />that part of art. 9, ~ I, which reada:
<br />
<br />If '" '" * Taxes shall be uniform
<br />upon the same dass of subjects, and
<br />shall be levied and collected for public
<br />purposes" ;
<br />
<br />and art, 10, ~ 2, which reads:
<br />
<br />flNo- corporations shall be formed
<br />und.er special acts, except for munici-
<br />pal purposes."
<br />
<br />Initially, in order to' determine whether
<br />there is any merit to plaintiff's contentions
<br />that 'these acts are in contravention of the
<br />above' constitutional provisions, it is. neces.
<br />sary to detennine whether the establish.
<br />ment and operation of a port having for its
<br />purpose the improvement of a harbor and
<br />the furnishing of port terminal facilities is
<br />or may involve the perfonnance of a gov-
<br />ernmental or public function as distinguish.
<br />ed from one private in nature. In the de.
<br />termination of this question some related
<br />rules should be k-ept in mind.
<br />
<br />lfit1n. 643
<br />
<br />......~,..'i_~em.~I;RH.It) .. ,,'iIody
<br />.a<< ~J.le(,'1ltl'flf~':.!JiLUI!L ,'.-4ireetty l'e.
<br />1dtld"twlll.. , U IlJ"GIf.pt.W::...aLt
<br />
<br />[2] 2. ia'll\J211ll1lillllt"......~{._. act
<br />of,."~ '"6,..UU~~ ..',..,~..f.'a
<br />"B~ ~'.-~:."[a.puMIe-,,parpoee
<br />wJlj,o,Ir.,wOIliwtlHriloo II '11-. qf1l\ll>Iic
<br />.~t*,,1.~IA~",".h-tll L'l M';pIIiIlic,
<br />~!".$":""'-'M.~U4R/.ie'P" /1110
<br />c'latU..l.l lL~r_~._iI _Jl>:wAat ..'DOt '.
<br />".......~pl j~....'p....a~__,of a
<br />1&'~II.mtUbd~ ,..~,~.. for-the
<br />~: . . re.... ia,tJae'ioIi-.a1yaia'RlDUit
<br />-....'..._~
<br />
<br />[3,4] 3:""'FM L llIi!lllllln pn-
<br />-,~] '- 1 r'- ~'~~vt'a.a.i~i~tnt~J. bep..
<br />.~ u &... "~l,'~ "..~tI&e
<br />........ d -_~; UlJ.......-'tf;i..,~
<br />..,....,...,l... .~, jdihe rule i~ clearly -stated
<br />in Burns v. EssJing, 156 Minn. 171, i74, 194-
<br />N. W, 404, 405, as follows:
<br />
<br />u. . * if the' primary Qbject of
<br />an expenditure of municipal funds is
<br />to subserve a public purpose, the ex.
<br />penditure is legal, altbougb it'may also
<br />involve as an incident' an experlditure
<br />which, standing alone, would not be
<br />lawful, It is equally well settled that,
<br />if the primary object hl to promote
<br />some private end, the expendi'ture is il..
<br />legal, although It may incidentally
<br />serve some public purpose also." f,
<br />
<br />[1] I. 10__ MtIIed "lIltlllir-'......
<br />tIuot, d1t_ GtlUi'lilIIaicIpIII'.lIIMliffI',.. 4, Essentially, it i. the conteotion of
<br />or..... . ~ upetICl paWlc--.,1lIIIy', plaintiff that the Port of Duluth haa already
<br />low s,.,.,blil"pUJ ,_"!;\Iw1 g",.~c been built up extenaively by prlv~.capital
<br />'~ '.: wiIt.,...,._ .!q1L1." _-"'o>tand industry and that no .necessity exi_sts
<br />fIf,~ 11"- RJiI'n~"'-1IOt'Cftt'll1d""'-..,...ne for action on the part, of the state, county,
<br />"'~\iillllt ""' _~,. ... or city to cuter this field, Quite apart from
<br />.it. .......-ItIdr'Mf.aetirlty ........,jU;~. the question of what,has been done.in the
<br />
<br />I. Castner v. City of MiDDeapolis. 92 Minn.
<br />114,OO N.W'. 861.
<br />
<br />2. 16 McQuillin. ~oniclp8) Corporatioos (3
<br />00.) f -H.atS (tor llJustratioWl of some
<br />pabUe pUrpose8. see Id. t 44:36): lee,
<br />Note, 40 MiDn.L.Rev. 681. " .
<br />
<br />8. Bume v. E8IUnr. 1M Minn. 171,' 194
<br />N.W, 404; Stewart 'v. "Great Northel'll
<br />
<br />R,y, 00., 66 Mlnn, 61ll, 68 N.W. 206, llll
<br />LR.A..-427; AreDI v. VUla" of Rocera,
<br />240 MIDD. 386. 402, 61 N.W.2d GOB. 519,
<br />appeal diamtued;.34'1 V.S. 949. 14 S.Ot.
<br />680, Il8 I.E<!. 1006: III MeQnIIUn, Mo-
<br />uicip&! OorporaUoua(8 ed.) 189.19.
<br />4. See. alao, Coates Y.' 08Di~be1I.'81 'MInD.
<br />498. 35 N.W. 366; - 1 0001.",. TaXation
<br />(4 .d.) .. 179 to 183. .
<br />
<br />i
<br />''I
<br />,I
<br />~ ';
<br />1
<br />
|