Helm v. Childers
| Decision Date | 18 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 27985 |
| Citation | 75 P.2d 398,181 Okla. 535,1938 OK 34 |
| Parties | HELM v. CHILDERS, State Auditor, et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. TAXATION - Act Creating State Travel and Tourist Bureau Held not Violative of Constitutional Provision Prohibiting Appropriation of Public Funds for Other Than Public Purpose.
Legislation creating the State Travel and Tourist Bureau, H. B. 273, art. 11, ch. 50, S. L. 1937, p. 373, and setting aside funds of the state highway construction and maintenance fund for salary and expenses is not violative of section 14, art. 10, Constitution, providing taxes shall be levied and collected by general laws and for public purposes only.
2. HIGHWAYS - State Travel and Tourist Bureau Act Held not Violative of Constitution Against Diversion of Funds.
Said act (art. 11, ch. 50, S. L. 1937, p. 373) is not violative of section 19, art 10, Constitution, in that no moneys are diverted by the act from the purposes and object to which the state highway construction and maintenance fund may be devoted under legislative authorization and sanction.
3. MANDAMUS - Publicity Director of State Travel and Tourist Bureau Held Entitled to Writ Requiring Issuance of Warrant for Salary.
Petitioner shows a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus to require respondents to issue to him a warrant for salary when and if funds sufficient to pay such warrant accumulate in the state highway construction and maintenance fund.
Original action for writ of mandamus by Ennis C. Helm against C.C. Childers, State Auditor, and Hubert L. Bolen, State Treasurer. Writ granted.
Peyton Ford and Bascom Coker, for petitioner.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Randell S. Cobb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
L.G. Harries, amicus curiae.
¶1 Ennis C. Helm, as publicity director of the State Travel and Tourist Bureau, seeks in this original action a writ of mandamus to require the respondents to issue a salary warrant to him in the sum of $250, for the month of June, 1937.
¶2 The position was created by H. B. 273, 16th Legislature, art. 11, ch. 50, S. L. 1937, p. 373. The Highway Commission, as authorized, fixed the salary and made the appointment. The act authorizes payment of the salary "from the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund."
¶3 It is contended on behalf of respondents that the act attempts to appropriate money for other than a public purpose in violation of section 14, art. 10, Constitution. Vette v. Childers, State Auditor, 102 Okla. 140, 228 P. 145; Citizens Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. (U.S.) 655.
¶4 It is urged that a State Travel and Tourist Bureau is not a proper governmental function.
¶5 The meaning of "public purposes" for which governmental exaction of money may be had is not within a narrow and restricted sense. At any rate, the courts cannot interfere to arrest legislative action where the line of distinction between that allowable and that which is not is faint and shadowy. In such instances the decision of the Legislature is accepted as final. Cooley's Const. Limitations (7th Ed.) 696; Gray on Limitations of Taxing Power and Public Indebtedness, sec. 176; Shelby County v. Tennessee Cent. Exposition Co. (Tenn.) 36 S.W. 694; State ex rel. etc., v. Cornell (Neb.) 74 N.W. 59, 39 L. R. A. 513; A. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40, 54 S. Ct. 599; Milhem v. Moffat Tunnel Imp. Dist. (Colo.) 211 P. 649; State v. Wilson & Co. (La.) 154 So. 636; Barrow et al. v. Bradley (Ky.) 227 S.W. 1016; State of Washington v. Claussen, 110 Wn. 525, 188 P. 538. It is conceivable that a public benefit may be derived as a result of the legislation. The contention is without merit.
¶6 It is urged that the act violates section 19, art. 10, Constitution, in that a diversion of funds occurs, whereas the Constitution prescribes that no tax levied and collected for one purpose shall ever be devoted to another purpose.
¶7 The rule stated in Hawks v. Bland, 156 Okla. 48, 9 P.2d 720, is relied upon. Therein the state highway construction and maintenance fund was sought to be diverted to the payment of a death claim of an employee, not otherwise chargeable against the state.
¶8 In the case at bar it is highly doubtful whether a diversion is contemplated. The funds "set aside out of the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund" are "to be used and expended under the direction and with the approval of the State Highway Commission."
¶9 In the case of Milburn v. Childers, 178 Okla. 84, 61 P.2d 1047, there was a true case of diversion, but the applicability of the constitutional restriction to taxes other than annually recurring taxes was not therein discussed. McGannon v. State ex rel. Trapp et al., 33 Okla. 145, 124 P. 1063; Myer et al. v. Lynde-Bowman Darby Co. et al., 35 Okla. 480, 130 P. 548; Ex parte Marler, 140 Okla. 194, 282 P. 353; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Myers, State Auditor, 204 Fed. 140, But see Ward v. State, 176 Okla. 368, 56 P.2d 136.
¶10 Independently of the act under consideration the Highway Commission has legislative authority to employ assistants to carry out purposes of its organization (section 10080, O. S. 1931), and to fix salaries (section 10079, O. S. 1931), and to determine duties of persons so employed and to promote highway improvement and maintenance (section 10075, O. S. 1931). Section 10075 and section 10079, supra, repealed, and substance re-enacted chapter 12, S. L. 1933, p. 31, paragraph (f) and section 6.
¶11 By separate and independent legislative acts funds heretofore collected and credited to the state highway construction and maintenance fund, under former acts, and accumulating funds, were appropriated for use and expenditure under direction of the State Highway Commission and provision was made by the Legislature for the expenditure of such funds "for such other purposes as may be provided by law." Article 2, sec. 1, ch. 50, S. L. 1935, p. 21. See, also, chapter 167. S. L. 1933, p. 384. This provision was re-enacted by the Sixteenth Legislature as a part of article 3, ch. 50, S. L. 1937, p. 325, wherein all money raised by taxation or otherwise was directed to be expended from the state highway construction and maintenance fund by the State Highway Commission in the payment of salaries, wages, and expenses, and on state or county highways "unless otherwise provided by law." The latter enactment was approved May 22, 1937, while the act under consideration became effective May 12, 1937, providing for the expenditure to which objection is made, just ten days prior thereto. Thus it was clearly contemplated that the expenditure in question and those allied with it should be considered as a purpose to which the state highway construction and maintenance fund should be devoted.
¶12 Article 2, ch. 50, S. L. 1937, p. 324, also approved May 22, 1937, with the emergency, appropriates the fund under consideration "heretofore and hereafter collected" for expenditure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Immel v. Tulsa Pub. Facilities
...not be construed "in a narrow or restrictive sense." Burkhardt v. City of Enid , 1989 OK 45, ¶ 9, 771 P.2d 608, 610 (citing Helm v. Childers , 1938 OK 34, ¶ 5, 181 Okla. 535, 75 P.2d 398, 399 ). A public purpose affects the inhabitants of the state or taxing district as a community. See id.......
-
State ex rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres
...term "public purpose" should not be construed "in a narrow or restrictive sense." Burkhardt 771 P.2d at 610 (quoting Helm v. Childers, 181 Okla. 535, 75 P.2d 398, 399 (1938)). Courts are to give great deference to a legislative body's determination that a particular project will serve a pub......
-
Bd. of Comr's of Marshall Cnty. v. Shaw, Case Number: 32810
...affected with a public interest, but must be performed by the state in the exercise of its governmental functions. And, in Helm v. Childers, 181 Okla. 535, 75 P.2d 398, we said that the meaning of public purposes, as the term was used in said section of the Constitution, was not to be confi......
-
Carter v. Miley
...in expenditure to highway labor and material, but may be used for the general purpose for which it exists. ¶23 In Helm v. Childers, 181 Okla. 535, 75 P.2d 398, we held adversely to appellee's contention, and that the Highway Commission had authority to promote highway improvement and mainte......