In Re Opinion Of The Justices.

• Decision Date: 14 May 1947
• Citation: 53 A.2d 194
• Parties: In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

53 A.2d 194

In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

May 14, 1947.

Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Court answering questions submitted to them by the House of Representatives by a resolution.

Questions answered in accordance with opinion.

The following resolution adopted by the House of Representatives at the present session of the Court on May 6 was received May 7, 1947:

‘Whereas there is pending before the House of Representatives, House Bill No. 440, An act to provide state aid for low-rent housing; and

‘Whereas said bill provides for expenditure of public funds for the purposes set forth in said bill, including the applicable provisions of chapter 169, Revised Laws, as amended by House Bill No. 439, An Act relating to housing authorities, which was passed by the House of Representatives with amendment on April 21, 1947; and

‘Whereas certain amendments to said bill have been proposed by the Committee on Judiciary and are now pending; and

‘Whereas questions have arisen as to the constitutionality of said bill with proposed amendments and the validity of proposed expenditures thereunder;

‘Resolved by the House of Representatives that the Justices of the Supreme Court be respectfully requested to give their opinion upon the following questions of law:

‘1. May public funds be expended for the purposes set forth in said bill as amended, including the applicable provisions of chapter 169, Revised Laws, as amended by House Bill No. 439?

‘2. May the state guarantee the payment of temporary notes as provided in sections 2 and 3 of Part III of said bill?

‘3. May the state make contracts for the payment of annual subsidies and pledge its full faith and credit therefor as provided in section 4 of Part III of said bill?

‘4. Do any of the provisions of House Bill No. 440 involve an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the state housing board or to the governor and council?

‘Further Resolved, That the Speaker transmit copies of this resolution and of House Bills 439 and 440 with amendments thereto appearing in the Journals for April 21, 1947 and May 6, 1947, to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the consideration of the Court.’

The following answer was returned:

To the House of Representatives:

The Justices of the Supreme Court furnish the following answers to the inquiries contained in your Resolution of May 1947:

The first three questions set forth in your Resolution all depend upon the basic question whether the purposes of the bill are for the benefit of private persons or for private uses for which the expenditure of public moneys cannot be made, or whether they are public purposes for the accomplishment of which public moneys may properly be used. If this were a new question, it would involve serious doubts, but in view of the present state of the law in this country, it can no longer be regarded as doubtful. Housing statutes in various forms have been enacted in many of the states and their constitutionality has been sustained with practical unanimity by the courts of those states. See Allydonn Realty Corporation v. Holyoke Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 23 N.E.2d 665, and note to Housing Authority v. Higginbothan, 130 A.L.R. 1053, 1069, where the numerous authorities are collected.

There can, of course, be no doubt that private persons will benefit by the establishment of low-rent housing projects and slum clearance projects such as are contemplated by the bills but among the tests of a public purpose laid down in the Allydonn case [304 Mass. 288, 23 N.E.2d 668], cited above, are the following: ‘Whether, insofar as benefits accrue to individuals, the whole of society has an interest in having those individuals benefited,’ and ‘whether a special...