tation money in the same way and same district. Provision is also made for collecting the tax by suit against residents who neither do the work nor commute, and for the expenditure of the money collected in the same road district and in the same way. Provision is then made for the collection of the unpaid taxes on non-resident lands, and also of such taxes upon property assessed as resident as have not been paid, and for the expenditure of the money in the same road district and in the same way. See Com. Laws, pages 432 to 435, secs. 1226 to 1241.

Here we have a law imposing a tax, and distinctly stating the tax and the object to which it is to be applied, in direct conformity with the section of the constitution which I have read.

It is true that this law was in existence when the constitution was made; but then we have in the schedule subjoined to the constitution, section 1, this: "The common law and the statute laws now in force, not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation, or are altered or repealed by the Legislature ;" and section 13 of the schedule, this: "It shall be the duty of the Legislature, at their first session, to adapt the present laws to the provisions of this constitution, as far as may be."

This general road law was not repugnant to the constitution; it needed no adaptation, and received none; but remained and still remains in force, with like effect and subject to the same construction as if passed after the constitution was adopted. Some sections of the law have since been amended, but no amendment has been made that affects the question, unless it be one which will be considered hereafter.

Now, these bills under consideration do not propose to amend the general road law; they do not propose to interfere with the assessment and collection of the highway taxes by the township and county authorities, under the general law; but after the taxes have been assessed and collected by the township and county authorities, and at the expense of the

townships and counties, they propose to step in and divert the money from the object to which it is to be applied, as stated in the law imposing the tax. They propose to take the money and put it into the hands of McCaul, the special commissioner named in and to be appointed by the enactment of these bills, not to be expended in the construction and improvement of roads and bridges in the road districts, in and for the benefit of which it was assessed and collected, but to be expended by him in laying out and constructing the roads named, which are to be laid out by himself, and in paying himself three dollars a day for his services.

Conceding for the present purpose the power of the Legislature to amend the general road law so as to direct the highway tax imposed by it to be applied to some other object, the committee are clearly of the opinion that while that law remains as it is, not a dollar of the highway tax assessed and collected in any one road district can constitutionally be diverted by a special act from the object stated in the law imposing the tax, to wit: The purchase of implements, and the construction, repair, and improvement of the roads and bridges in the same district in which it is assessed and collected.

The amendment of the road law alluded to above consists in the addition to section 1228, p. 432 and section 1241, p.. 435, compiled laws, of these words, "Except when said taxes are otherwise appropriated or disposed of by law."

This amendment was made in 1857, by an act entitled "An act to amend sections 3 and 16 of chapter 24, title 6, of the revised statutes of 1846, so as to increase the rate of commutation for labor assessed on the highways."

It was introduced with that one object expressed in its title. It did increase the rate of commutation from seventy-five cents for each day, to one dollar for each day. In its progress through the House, the above words were added to each section, by amendment. But the title was not amended. It now stands on the statute book, as written above, with that one object only expressed in it.

In the opinion of the committee, these words either do not change the law at all, or make it unconstitutional. The only effect they can have upon the law, is to make the object to which the tax imposed by the law is to be applied uncertain, unsettled, misstated, to be fixed and determined by some other law. If they have that effect, most clearly they make the law unconstitutional. The constitution requires that the object shall be stated in the very law imposing the tax. Therefore, the object cannot be changed except by an amendment of the law; so that the new object to which the tax is to be applied shall be distinctly stated in the law imposing the tax.

See the last clause of section 14, article 14, of the constitution: "It shall not be sufficient to refer to any other law to fix the tax or object."

The committee believe that the exception added to those two sections of the general road law are wholly nugatory.

"The Legislature shall provide an uniform rule of taxation."-Constitution, Art. 14, Sec. 11.

Having by the road law provided a uniform rule of taxation for highway purposes, after the highway tax has been assessed and collected in a road district, can the Legislature interpose, and by special act direct the money to be expended in another district? Would it not be an unwarrantable breach of the rule of uniformity?

1

"The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor."-Constitution, Art. 18, Sec. 14.

Section 2 of the same article provides that when "private property is taken for public use, the necessity for using it, and the just compensation therefor, shall be ascertained as therein provided."

That private property shall not be taken by legislative act, to be given to another for private use, is too clearly within the inhibitions of the law of nature, and too universally conceded to require to be put into a constitution, except as it is embraced in the general provision that "no person shall be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The committee believe that when a highway tax is assessed and collected regularly, according to the general road law, the money belongs to the district. As between the district and its inhabitants, it is public property of the district. As to all the rest of the world, it is private property of the district, and the district can no more be deprived of its private property than an individual, "without due process of law."

Private property may be taken for public use, in two ways only: By taxation, and by the exercise of the right of eminent domain.

The money collected for highway taxes is taken from the pockets of individuals by taxation. The right to do this is unquestioned, but it is taken into the township treasury as a part of the township highway fund, belonging to the road district in which it is collected.

These bills propose to take it from the township treasury, not by taxation, certainly. If, by right of eminent domain, compensation must be made, the amount to be ascertained, as provided in section 2 of article 18 of the constitution. But these bills make no such provision for compensation. And, besides, the better opinion is that money cannot be taken by right of eminent domain.-2 Mich. Rep., 566, 4 Comstock's Rep, 424.

The committee think it unnecessary to pursue this argument further.

It has been suggested on the floor of this House, that we, as legislators, had better not exercise ourselves much about the constitutionality of the laws we pass, but leave constitutional questions for the consideration of the courts. If the committee had any rational doubt of the unconstitutionality of this sort of legislation, doubtless their modesty and prudence would deter them from placing themselves on record in an opinion adverse to the repeated action of the House.

But as the committee are thoroughly convinced, both of the

unconstitutionality, always, and the injustice and unsound policy generally, of this class of bills, and as they have sworn to support the constitution, they consider it right, at least, if not an obligation, to place on record in this form, their protest against it.

The committee respectfuly report the petitions, bills, and remonstrances back to the House, and recommend that the bills do not pass, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

JOHN WALKER,
ARNOLD WALKER,

LEVI WALKER.

Report accepted and committee discharged.

Mr. Lockwood moved that the three named bills be ordered printed, referred to the committee of the whole, and placed on the general order.

Mr. Gilmore demanded the yeas and nays.

The demand was seconded and the motion prevailed, by yeas and nays, as follows: