187 S.W.2d 806 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1945
Reversing. *127
The question is whether the General Assembly may require a municipality to levy a tax, within minimum and maximum limits, to support a public library owned and being operated by the municipality. It is conceded the Legislature has such power, unless inhibited by Section 181 of the Constitution, as amended in the year 1903. The section, in so far as pertinent, reads: "The General Assembly shall not impose taxes for the purposes of any county, city, town or other municipal corporation, but may, by general laws, confer on the proper authorities thereof, respectively, the power to assess and collect such taxes. * * *"
The act under consideration was passed by the General Assembly in its regular session of 1944, and is compiled in KRS
Appellee is a city of the second class, and instituted the action under Section 639a — 1 to 639a — 5 of the Civil Code of Practice, seeking a declaration of its rights: contending that Sections 2, 7, and 11 of the act (KRS
Section 181 of the Constitution has been construed by this court in innumerable cases. In each instance we have held that the inhibition upon the power of the Legislature to levy a tax for a municipality applies to *128
levies for local purposes, and not to matters with which the public at large is concerned. In this connection it has been held that the inhibition applies in respect to levies for fire departments, McDonald v. City of Louisville,
It is true, the act under consideration in that case was merely an enabling act and contained no mandatory provision. But the principles above quoted are well established in this jurisdiction. The decision in this case, therefore, turns upon a determination of the category, i. e., local or governmental, into which public libraries must be placed.
At the outset, it may be helpful to determine the respect to be accorded certain language contained in Alvey v. Brigham et al,
It is obvious that the words we have emphasized have no rightful place in the opinion, and that the question of the right of the Legislature to dictate to cities in respect to public libraries was not presented in that case. The statement, then, that the library in question "may and should be free from state interference" is obiter dictum, or an utterance of the writer of the opinion in turning aside, for the time, from the question presented. This utterance, therefore, cannot be considered as a precedent in determining the question now under consideration.
With that opinion disposed of, we are free to examine the question upon basic principles, and in the light of other cases bearing upon the question.
It seems that the best approach to the subject would be to examine the function of a public library; and then to determine the scope of its function: that is to say, whether its function inures solely to the benefit of the city in which it is situate, or whether it inures to the *130
benefit of the public at large. At this point attention should be called to the fact that, even though the local community may benefit to a greater extent than the public in general, yet if the service inures to the benefit of the State at large to any appreciable extent, its control rests with the Legislature and does not come within the purview of Section 181 of the Constitution. This principle was established clearly in District Board of Tuberculosis Sanitarium Trustees for Fayette County v. Lexington, supra [
Counsel for appellee takes the position that a public library is solely a place of amusement where its patrons indulge in moments of relaxation and enjoyment — "a kind of enjoyment to pass away the time in a realm separate and apart from the realities and drab sameness of everyday existence." It may be that some of the patrons experience this character of enjoyment upon their visitations to public libraries; and for them such institutions, indeed, are places wherein they may relax and be relieved of the "cares that infest the day." But such cannot be said to be idle amusement; on the contrary, it is one that better fits the individual to be of help to his neighbor, city, state, and nation. His contact with his fellowmen spreads knowledge, helps lift the ban of ignorance, and stimulates a desire on the part of his associates to improve their own minds, thus advancing the cultural status of the community. But, irrespective of the beneficial effect to the public of this character of its use, we are not willing to concede that such is the sole function of a public library — it provides for the youth a medium for extra curricular research to supplement the basic principles taught in the classroom; it provides a facility for those to continue their education who, perforce, have abandoned attendance upon the public schools; and it is an institution which permits the adult, even though he may have completed the highest prescribed course of education, to continue his studies and improve his culture. In either event, the library raises the standard of knowledge and education. It may be likened to a mirror wherein, delving, one may *131
see a reflection of the past. Were we not permitted to gaze into the future through this mirror of the past, our civilization long since would have marked its own time by being required to investigate anew each approach to a particular field of investigation or line of thought, and actually to blunder by the repetition of mistakes so clearly demonstrated in the written records. Each individual research serves as an enlightenment to the public at large. The institution which affords this opportunity is educational in its every aspect. This conclusion is supported by previous decisions of this court, one of which is Ramsey v. City of Shelbyville,
Having arrived at the conclusion that a public library is an educational institution, there remains the relatively simple task of placing it into its proper category in respect to local or public concern. In 47 Am. Jur., Sec. 6. pp. 299 and 300, the writer says: "* * * it is now recognized that education is a function of government. Such function or duty is not regarded as a local matter, but as a state governmental duty, and the public-school system is now a department of the government."
The same idea is incorporated in 56 C. J., sec. 29, pp. 177 and 178. This court, in Jeffries v. Board of Trustees of Columbia Graded Common School,
To the same effect is Warley v. Board of Park Com'rs et al.,
In Zoeller v. State Board of Agriculture,
But it is argued that the act under consideration "localized itself" by the provisions of KRS
The public benefit of the project is the lifting of the standard of education, and this benefit is not circumscribed by a limitation upon free use of the facilities afforded by the institution. If persons living outside of the community which is required to maintain the library desire individual benefit, it is no more than just that they contribute to the facility. But such outside financial assistance does not detract from the benefit which inures to the public in general. It is a well known fact that school districts charge tuition to students living without the territorial boundaries of the district; but this fact *133 does not change the character of the service rendered by the schools. In like tenor, the provision in respect to the free use of the library does not change the character of the benefit which the public derives from the library.
It is next argued that the act is discriminatory and unconstitutional, because its provisions are mandatory in respect to cities which have heretofore enabled themselves of the privilege of acquiring libraries, whereas the act is merely enabling to those who have not heretofore seen fit to establish such an institution. This argument is not sound. It is true the act does not require a city to establish a library, but if it should exercise its discretion to do so, the mandatory provisions are applicable to it to the same extent they are to libraries in existence at the time of the effective date of the act. No distinction or discrimination is made in respect to the date of establishment of a library.
Finally, it is argued that the act is discriminatory, because it is applicable to governmental units divided upon an unreasonable classification. The basis of this contention is that the act applies only to cities containing property of the assessed value of five million dollars or more, and that there is no reasonable basis for such a classification. But we think that the classification is reasonable, and does not contravene Section 59 or 60 of the Constitution, even when read in connection with Section 156 of the same instrument. Section 59 reads:
"The General Assembly shall not pass local or special acts concerning any of the following subjects, or for any of the following purposes, namely:
* * * * *
"(Subsection 15): to authorize or to regulate the levy, the assessment or the collection of taxes, or to give any indulgence or discharge to any assessor or collector of taxes, or to his sureties."
Section 60, in so far as pertinent, recites: "The General Assembly shall not indirectly enact any special or local act by the repeal in part of a general act, or by exempting from the operation of a general act any city, town, district or county; * * *."
Section 156 reads: "The cities and towns of this *134 Commonwealth, for the purposes of their organization and government, shall be divided into six classes. The organization and powers of each class shall be defined and provided for by general laws, so that all municipal corporations of the same class shall possess the same powers and be subject to the same restrictions. * * *"
In Hager, State Auditor, v. Walker et al.,
In Withers v. Board of Drainage Com'rs of Webster County,
We have demonstrated that the subject covered by the act in question does not deal with "local affairs" of municipalities; therefore the inhibitions of Sections 59 and 60 of the Constitution in respect to special and local enactments are not rendered applicable by the exclusion from the provisions of the act of all cities containing less than five million dollars worth of assessed property, unless the classification is arbitrary or has no relation to the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, the classification complained of has a direct relation to the subject matter, because the Legislature, no doubt, reasoned that a city having less than five million dollars worth of assessed property could not maintain a library by the levy of the minimum rate provided in the act, and it would have been a futile gesture to make the act applicable to such cities. The act does not deprive these communities of the privilege of maintaining libraries in conjunction with the governments of other contiguous territories; indeed, it expressly provides that they may do so. The only prohibition implied in the Act is that *135 they alone may not enter into a project which it was thought by the Legislature they alone could not maintain.
Our attention is called to the fact that the minimum levy under the provisions of the act will yield revenues greatly in excess of judicious expenditures in maintaining various public libraries already in existence. In this connection it is said that the public library in Newport, which has been in existence for forty-nine years, is being maintained adequately upon an appropriation of eight thousand dollars per annum; whereas, under the provisions of the act, the minimum annual levy will produce twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500). In like manner, the public library in the City of Lexington, amicus curiae herein, which library was established in the year 1903, is being maintained adequately upon an annual appropriation of twelve thousand five hundred seventy dollars ($12,570); whereas, the minimum annual levy under the provisions of the act will produce the approximate sum of twenty six thousand dollars ($26,000). We would not lightly pass over this criticism, if it were a matter the courts could take into consideration in determining the validity of an act of the Legislature. But we have no power to question the propriety, wisdom, or expediency of legislation. Any unjust provision of the act can be remedied only by the General Assembly. Craig v. O'Rear,
Since the chancellor was of the opinion that the City of Newport is acting in its proprietary capacity in the operation of its public library, and that for this reason the act in question is violative of Section 181 of the Constitution, the judgment is reversed, with directions that another be entered in conformity with this opinion.
Whole Court sitting.
Chief Justice Tilford and Judge Harris dissenting. *136
