Michigan Sugar Co. v. Auditor General

• Decision Date: 02 October 1900
• Citation: 124 Mich. 674,83 N.W. 625
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MICHIGAN SUGAR CO. v. AUDITOR GENERAL.

83 N.W. 625

124 Mich. 674

MICHIGAN SUGAR CO. v. AUDITOR GENERAL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 2, 1900

Mandamus by the Michigan Sugar Company against the auditor general. Writ denied.

T. A. E. & J. C. Weadock (H. H. Hatch, of counsel), for relator.

Horace M. Oren, Atty. Gen. (C. D. Joslyn, of counsel), for respondent.

LONG J.

In 1897, the legislature of this state passed an act entitled 'An act to provide for the encouragement of the manufacture of beet sugar and to provide a compensation therefor, and to make an appropriation therefor.' Section 2 provides: 'No money shall be paid for sugar so manufactured unless such sugar shall have been so manufactured in this state and from beets grown in the state of Michigan, and unless such sugar shall contain at least ninety per cent crystallized sugar, and the manufacturer shall produce good and sufficient receipts and vouchers to show that at least four dollars per ton of twenty hundred pounds has actually been paid for all beets purchased containing twelve per cent of sugar, said twelve per cent being the basis for valuation of the purchase price of four dollars per ton. The quantity and quality of sugar upon which all of said bounty is claimed shall be determined by the commissioner of the state land office with whom all claimants shall from time to time file verified statements showing the quantity and quality of sugar so manufactured by them, the price paid the producer for the beets actually produced in this state upon which said bounty is claimed.' Section 3 provides: 'The persons, firms or corporations so intending to engage in the manufacture of beet sugar in this state shall, before commencing the same file a statement with the commissioner of the state land office setting forth their proposed undertaking, the capacity of their manufactory, the number of tons of beets they intend to manufacture per annum, and request said commissioner of the state land office to appoint a suitable weighman and inspector as hereinafter provided.' Sections 4 and 5 provide that the commissioner of the state land office shall appoint a weighman and inspector to keep an accurate account of the sugar manufactured and the kind and character of the beets furnished; and also provide that the firm or corporation buying the beets and manufacturing the sugar shall, in order to obtain the bounty provided by the act, pay to the seller of the beets at least four dollars per ton for beets containing 12 per cent. of sugar, and a sum proportionate to that amount for beets containing a greater or less per cent. of sugar. Section 6 provides: 'When any claim arising under this act is filed, verified and approved by the commissioner of the state land office as hereinafter provided, he shall verify the same to the auditor general of the state, who shall draw a warrant upon the state treasurer for the amount thereof payable to the person, firm or corporation to whom said sum or sums are due.' The act appropriated the sum of $10,000 for the years 1897 and 1898 and provided that, if the bounty should exceed that amount the deficit should be paid from the general fund. Act No. 48, Pub. Acts 1897. In 1899 the legislature passed Act No. 263, entitled 'An act to provide a tax to meet the several appropriations for which a tax is not otherwise provided for the general expenses of the state government, salaries of the state officers, expenses of the state department and expenses of the legislature for the years eighteen hundred and ninety-nine and nineteen hundred.' Act No. 263, Pub. Acts 1899. Section 2 of this act provides: 'The several sums appropriated by the provisions of any act to meet which this act provides a tax shall, so far as moneys are required to be paid to the boards or officers of any institution or commission, be paid out of the general fund in the state treasury to the proper board, or officer, at such times and in such amounts as the general accounting laws of the state prescribe, and the disbursing officer of such board or commission shall render his accounts to the auditor general thereunder.' It is claimed that, while this last act does not, in terms, provide for an appropriation of any moneys to pay the bounty on beet sugar manufactured, yet that it was the intent of the legislature to provide by the act for such bounty, as a committee of the house of representatives caused a statement to be made showing the different amounts necessary to be raised; and it is claimed that this statement was an estimate of an excess of bounty over the tax previously raised, amounting to $42,714.08, and a further estimate of the amounts needed for the years 1899 and 1900 of $50,000 and $150,000, respectively. On the other hand, it is claimed by the respondent that under date of December 2 and 29, 1898, the relator presented its claim for bounty earned, amounting to $28,451.07, which presumably covered all claims to the end of the year 1898; and that no specific appropriations were made by the act of 1899, nor any taxes levied for such bounty. Relator claims that there is due it for such bounties the sum of $24,262. The accounts were presented to the auditor general by the relator for such amount, and payment was refused.

It appears that the relator is a corporation organized under the laws of the state, with a capital stock of $200,000, and that it has fully complied with all the provisions of the act of 1897 to be entitled to the bounty provided by that act. But two questions are raised: (1) It is claimed that there is no money in the state treasury with which to pay the bounty claimed, as the act of 1899 made no appropriation for it, and therefore the respondent properly refused to draw the warrant for the same; while, on the other hand, it is claimed by relator that an appropriation was made, and that, though the act of 1897 be found unconstitutional and void, the relator is entitled to have the bounty paid, as the legislature has recognized by the act of 1899 the right of the relator to have the bounties earned under the act of 1897. (2) It is claimed by respondent that the act of 1897 is unconstitutional.

We sill discuss the last proposition first. This taxation is for no such public purpose that it can be unheld. There is no power in the state to authorize a tax for private purposes. Taxes can be levied only for public purposes to accomplish some government end. The legislature is the mere creature of an organic law deriving all its power from the constitution. Its limits within that power must be admitted to be plenary except so far as otherwise specifically limited; but, outside those limits, it is as powerless as if specifically prohibited. It cannot take the property of A. and give it to B., nor can it tax it for the benefit of B. Here is a private corporation now calling upon the state for a sum of money to aid it in carrying on a private business, most of which money, if paid, must come out of the pockets of people who are not engaged in that business, and who have no interest in it. It is claimed by the relator that this is not a gift to the relator, but that it would not have engaged in the business but for this act of the legislature; that, in reliance upon the act, it built a plant at large expense, and that it complied with the provisions of the act requiring it to pay to the producers of beets at the rate of four dollars per ton; and that, therefore, the honor and integrity of the state are involved. So the...