| Mich. | Dec 24, 1896
Lead Opinion
{after stating the facts). Four objections are raised by the attorney general to this claim:
1. That this provision of the city charter is in violation of section 20, art. 4, of the Constitution, in that no such object is expressed in its title.
2. That the general tax law of the State was passed subsequently to this charter, which act exempts all state property from taxation, and therefore repealed this provision of the charter.
3. That the act reincorporating the city of Lansing was not constitutionally enacted, because it was not read three times in each house of the legislature before its final passage, as required by section 19, art. 4, of the Constitution.
4. That the act is an appropriation of public money for local purposes, and is therefore void under section 45, art. 4, of the Constitution, in that two-thirds of the members of each house did not vote for the bill.
It has been the policy of this State from the beginning to exempt its property from taxation, local and general. I am not aware of any act before passed by the legislature imposing the burden upon the State of assisting municipal corporations financially to support their local govern
It is unimportant, in this view of the case, to discuss the other questions.
The writ is denied.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I cannot concur with the majority of the court. The legislature, by Act No. 405, Local Acts 1893, passed “An act to reincorporate the city of Lansing, in the county of Ingham, and to repeal all
“The council shall afford all fire and police protection to property owned by the State, and bestow such care and attention upon the streets, sidewalks, cross-walks, sewers, and drains as the council shall deem necessary to such streets or avenues upon which may be located any of the State’s buildings, parks, or' grounds. The state board of auditors shall allow the city of Lansing such sum or sums of money as would, in the judgment of the city assessors, be lawfully assessable for like purposes against the property generally in said city of Lansing. And the auditor general, on the presentation of such account, duly signed, shall draw his order on the state treasurer therefor.”
This section, by its terms, imposes the duty upon the city of providing fire and police protection for state property, and of bestowing care upon the streets, sewers, and walks adjacent to such property. It recognizes that such service is of benefit to the entire State, as it unquestionably is, and provides for the reimbursement of the city from the state treasury. Municipal corporations are the creatures of the State, dependent upon it for existence, vested with certain privileges, and charged with certain duties of government, for the benefit of the State as well as the locality. They are agencies of government, and may be required to do and pay for many things which are of state as well as local interest, such as building and repairing roads, providing jails and prisons for local offenders against the laws of the State, as well as the ordinances of the city. How far a city may be required to defray expenses for the benefit of the State may be questionable, as a perusal of the following cases will show: State v. Haben, 22 Wis. 660" court="Wis." date_filed="1868-02-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-ex-rel-board-of-education-v-haben-6599973?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6599973">22 Wis. 660; Board of Sup'rs v. Weider, 64 Ill. 427" court="Ill." date_filed="1872-09-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/board-of-supervisors-v-weider-6956120?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6956120">64 Ill. 427; Burr v. City of Carbondale, 76 Ill. 455" court="Ill." date_filed="1875-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/burr-v-city-of-carbondale-6958090?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6958090">76 Ill. 455. But where the locality has a special interest, as well as the general interest in which the State at large shares, and the subject is immediately related to its powers and privileges, the legislature may, at least, permit it to assume obligations and incur expenses for such
The act is attacked by the board of auditors, who refuse to pay the assessment made in accordance with section 14 of the charter. Several questions are raised by this record: It is alleged—•
1. That the provision is one appropriating money, and was not passed by the requisite two-thirds of the members elect.
2. That it is not within the title of the act.
3. That the general tax law passed at the same session, 18 days after the charter was passed, repealed section 14, inasmuch as it provided that the state property should not be taxed.
Section 45, art. 4, of the Constitution, provides: “ The assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public money or property for local or private purposes.” It is not applicable to this case, because, if this section can be said to appropriate money, it is not for local or private purposes, but for the benefit of the State at large.
“All expenses attending the confinement of any person sentenced to be committed to any workhouse or house of correction of said city, for any offense against the general laws of this State now or hereafter punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, shall be paid by the state treasurer quarter yearly, on the certificate of the city controller that such expenses have been incurred.” Act No. 55, Sess. Laws 1857, p. 107.
Again, under an act entitled ‘ ‘ An act to establish the Detroit House of Correction, and authorize the confinement of convicted persons therein,” provisions were made by which the state prison inspectors might contract for the keeping of certain prisoners in said house of correction. 2 How. Stat. chap. 344. Under these and similar acts, persons have been confined in said house of correction, at the expense of the State and the several counties, ever since; and we are unable to learn that the validity of the
The remaining question relates to the effect of the general tax law of 1893. This act provided a general rule for the assessment and collection of taxes, and in express terms repealed the general tax law of 1891, and “ all other acts and parts of acts in any wise contravening any of the provisions of this act.” Act No. 206, Pub. Acts 1893, § 126. Under the head of “ Beal Estate Exemptions” it provides that “all public property belonging to the United States, and all public property belonging to the State of Michigan,” etc. (section 7), shall be exempt from taxation. Was section 14 of the local act, reincorporating the city of Lansing, repealed by this provision ? If this latter act is to receive a strict and literal construction, it repeals section 14; but that is not necessary, and both laws may stand together, if such shall be shown to have been the legislative intent. The rule that statutes are to be interpreted in the light of, and with reference to, others in pari materia, has additional weight when applied to acts passed at one and the same session. Black v. Scott, 2 Brock. 325" court="None" date_filed="1828-06-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/black-v-scott-8628619?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8628619">2 Brock. 325; State v. Rackley, 2 Blackf. 249" court="Ind." date_filed="1829-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-rackley-7029644?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7029644">2 Blackf. 249; Carver v. Smith, 90 Ind. 227; State v. Dickinson, 20 Miss. 579" court="Miss." date_filed="1849-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-dickinson-8328674?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8328674">20 Miss. 579; Simpkins v. Ward, 45 Mich. 559" court="Mich." date_filed="1881-04-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/simpkins-v-ward-7930241?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7930241">45 Mich. 559; Joy v. Thompson, 1 Doug. 373; Willard v. Longstreet, 2 Doug. 172" court="Mich." date_filed="1845-07-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/willard-v-longstreet-6629838?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6629838">2 Doug. 172; Malonny v. Mahar, 1 Mich. 26" court="Mich." date_filed="1847-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/malonny-v-mahar-6630813?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6630813">1 Mich. 26; People v. May, 3 Mich. 598" court="Mich." date_filed="1855-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/people-ex-rel-hughes-v-may-6631480?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6631480">3 Mich. 598; Galpin v. Abbott, 6 Mich. 17" court="Mich." date_filed="1858-11-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/galpin-v-abbott-6631903?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6631903">6 Mich. 17, 34; People v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54" court="Mich." date_filed="1862-04-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/people-v-mckinney-6632629?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6632629">10 Mich. 54, 84; Whipple v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 26 Mich. 342" court="Mich." date_filed="1873-01-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/people-ex-rel-whipple-v-judge-of-saginaw-circuit-court-6635914?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6635914">26 Mich. 342; Reithmiller v. People, 44 Mich. 280" court="Mich." date_filed="1880-10-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/reithmiller-v-people-7929986?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7929986">44 Mich. 280; Turnbull v. Lumber Co., 55 Mich. 387" court="Mich." date_filed="1884-11-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/turnbull-v-prentiss-lumber-co-7931862?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7931862">55 Mich. 387. In Cain v. State, 20 Tex. 355" court="Tex." date_filed="1857-07-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/cain-v-state-4889033?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4889033">20 Tex. 355, it was held that the enactment of a Criminal Code, repealing all other laws as to crimes, should be construed not to repeal, but to leave standing side by side with it, a license law with penalties passed at the same session.' See, also, People v. Jackson,
“Words, absolute of themselves, and language the most broad and comprehensive, may be qualified and restricted by reference to other parts of the same statute in which they are used, and to the circumstances and facts existing at the time, and to which they relate or are applied. A literal interpretation of words in most common use, and having a well-defined meaning as ordinarily used, would not unfrequently defeat, rather than accomplish, the intent of the party using them. * * * A clause in a statute purporting to repeal other statutes is subject to the same rules of interpretation as other enactments, and the intend must prevail over literal interpretation. One part of an act of the legislature may be referred to in aid of the interpretation of other parts of the same act. So, in case of doubt or uncertainty, acts in pari materia, passed before or after, and whether repealed or unrepealed, may be referred to, in order to discern the intent of the legislature in the use of particular terms; and within the same rule, and the reason of it, contemporaneous legislation, although not precisely in pari materia, may be referred to for the same purpose. Statutes in pari materia relate to the same subject, the same person or thing, or the same class of persons or things, and are to be read together, for the reason that it is to be implied that a code of statutes relating to one subject are governed by the same spirit, and are intended to be harmonious and consistent. They are to be taken together as if they were one in law, as one statute. ”
This rule of construction is reinforced by the rule, “ Generalia specialibus non derogant. The presumption is that a general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. The general law is usually presumed to have only general cases in view, and not particular ones, which have been already provided for by the special act. Having already given its attention to the particular subject, and provided for it, the legislature is reasonably presumed not to intend to alter that special legislation by a subsequent general