Auditor General v. State Treasurer

7 N.W. 716, 45 Mich. 161
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided January 7, 1881·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Graves, J.

This is an amicable application to the Court to obtain an interpretation of an important part of Article 14 of the Constitution.*

The question raised is whether that portion of the pledged specific taxes not required for interest on the educational funds, and which the treasury is to collect and bold for State indebtedness, and which bas now outgrown tbat indebtedness, is so controlled by the words of the Constitution that it must hereafter be allowed to keep accumulating in the treasury, not only until the whole debt is due in 1890, but until it is entirely extinguished, however remote the event, and notwithstanding the amount of accumulation may prove to [163] be many times larger tlian the debt for tbe satisfaction of which the provision was intended.

In October last the State debt was $905,149.97 and the balance to the credit of the sinking fund was $1,208,895.27, and should the present practice continue of adding the residuum of the specific taxes, the amount in 1890 will probably exceed $3,000,000.

The attorney general, speaking on the side of the State treasurer, argues that the words of section one must be taken literally, and that they unavoidably require that the specified annual residuum of these taxes shall be added without interruption or abatement to the fund for the discharge of the State debt and interest, whether needed therefor or not, until they are extinguished.

The relator’s counsel, admitting the literal sense of the provision to be as represented, yet strongly contends that there are insuperable objections to the adoption of a literal meaning. lie argues that an attempt to carry out such a construction can end only in rendering the article hopelessly impracticable; that the case is one where it is indispensable to deviate from the literal import and to seek for and accept that ulterior sense which is called for by the end intended; that if this rule is observed all difficulties will disappear, and it will be found that the real object was to make sure provision for meeting the public obligations by means of a scheme imbedded in the Constitution, and that there was no ground or motive for a regulation to gather and impound a fund of indefinite amount, and which could not be put to any use connected with the object of the provision, and would most likely, under the theory of literal interpretation, be screened from any.other, and that an intention to effectuate such a state of things ought not to be imputed.

The question is one of high practical importance, but the ground of discussion is very narrow. It is fully opened by the statement of the points.

Neither the condition of the finances nor the state of public opinion in 1850 will facilitate a solution. It might be expected that the proceedings of the Convention would [164] give some clue to the precise manner in which it was understood this section (§ 1, Article 14) should actually operate in the contingency which has occurred, but they do not. True, a member suggested that a surplus might arise, but the remark was made and understood evidently as a mere casual observation in the course of debate and too fanciful to be noticed, and it seems not to have been noticed.

There was much difference of opinion relative to the proper disposition of the specific taxes. Some thought they ought to be used exclusively to pay the interest on the State debt, and to cancel the principal. Others believed they should be devoted wholly to the primary school and other educational funds.

A further question was whether specific taxes from corporations in the Upper Peninsula should be included in the general disposition, or be so left that the legislature might, if it was deemed best, appropriate them, or a part at least, to local objects of necessity in that territory; and lastly, it was strenuously urged by several gentlemen, that certain corporations paying specific taxes and holding large amounts of property in particular localities, ought to be subject to municipal taxation in common with other property holders in the same vicinity.

The entire Convention was earnestly in favor of placing the educational system on a high and sure foundation, and the plan of free schools had the support of a large majority. It was believed by many of its supporters that full operation of the scheme would be much hastened by a liberal application of these taxes in favor of education, and they were anxious to make that the chief, if not the exclusive purpose to which they should be devoted. But this was resisted by those who contended that the State debt was to be preferred, and also by others who wished to leave the subject to legislation. The result was in effect a compromise.

It was ruled by the majority that the specific taxes on mining companies in the Upper Peninsula should be left to legisn tion, and that for the time being the interest accruing on the educational funds should be first paid out of the other [165] specific taxes, and that what might remain, if anything, should be absorbed by the interest on the State debt, and by the debt itself, so long as it should' exist. The claim for local taxation on companies paying specific taxes was not embodied.

The Convention proceeded under the evident belief that the interest on the educational funds would so nearly consume the taxes that the residue would not be enough to make any serious impression on the principal of the State debt, and that its final extinguishment would ensue from other resources devised and contemplated by the Constitution. The expedient of a sinking fund as marked out in section two was viewed as being the main and efficient instrumentality for effacing the existing general debt. No one seems to have made a methodical calculation of probabilities respecting the time in which the debt, funded and fundable, and then being $2,529,872.87, would be paid under the scheme of the Convention. But all considered that its extinguishment could not be expected in less than a quarter of a century, and one gentleman observed that before it could be accomplished the Constitution would be again revised, and opportunity would be thus presented for contriving such a disposition of these taxes as might be deemed best. There were proposals that their application on the State debt should come to an end in 1852, in 1855, in 1865, and in 1880, and 1852 was agreed on. It was already understood that whenever such application should cease, they were to pass to the Primary School Interest Fund, and without being charged with the interest on the other educational funds. Some members who felt particular solicitude about this interest, and several who felt that these taxes, or at least a portion of them, had been devoted by the legislature to the payment of the State debt, were, as may be gathered from the proceedings, not satisfied with this arrangement. The latter in particular were apprehensive that so early a withholding the Whole of these taxes from application on the State debt, however meager the resource they might afford, and without reference to the forwardness of the means of payment through other [166] channels, would appear like bad faith to the public creditors. 'After some consideration and the lapse of a short time, and at the instance of the chairman of the committee, the fixed date was dropped and the present phraseology inserted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Auditor General v. State Treasurer, 7 N.W. 716, 45 Mich. 161 (Mich. 1881).

7 N.W. 716 (Auditor General v. State Treasurer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Sathre v. Hopton
265 N.W. 395 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1936)
State ex rel. Allee v. McCoy
16 Del. 465 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1896)