Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000160 185

Image

File
Download upr000160-185.tif (image/tiff; 23.52 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000160-185
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    Hr* ¥.* R. Rouse 13 April 2, 1952 State v* Smith (Mo*), p S. ¥. 2d 37, ac­quisition and operation of a mineral water sys­tem by a city held to be for a public purpose for which public funds could be spent. The construction of power and gas plants by a city was for a public purpose for which public funds could, be used* Carroll v, City of Cedar Falls (Iowa), 261 The case of Dysart v. City of gt» Louis (Mo*), 11 S. W. 2d lt)4$, held that the acqui- sition of land for an airport is for a public purpose within the meaning of the constitution authorizing the collection of taxes for public purposes, although in a California case it has been held that a city was engaged in a propri­etary activity in conducting an airport* Cole­man v. Oakland * 110 Cal. App* 715 . In Opinion to the Governor (Rhode Island), 70 Atl. 2d $17, ft was held that the establish­ment of a public auditorium is a public purpose for which public money could be spent, although a California case holds that the operation of a city auditorium is a proprietary function, Cha-~ for v. Long Beach* I63 Pac, 670. It is undoubtedly true that in the above mentioned class of cases, which involves the power of the Govern­ment to tax and to spend money, the courts have put a broad interpretation on the meaning of the phrase "pub­lic purpose"* Accordingly it might be dangerous to as­sume tfadt the courts would place a similar interpreta­tion upon the meaning of "public purpose" in connection with a statute which relieved a taxpayer from taxes. Ac­cordingly I have examined a number of cases involving tax exemption statutes to determine if under such stat­utes the term "public purpose" is deemed to include func­tions which are proprietary in nature as well as those which are governmental in nature* On this subject there is a diversity of opinion, but the weight of authority appears to be that properties owned by a public body and used in a proprietary capacity are nevertheless devoted to a public use and hence exempt from taxation under con­stitutional and statutory provisions exempting property devoted to public purposes. The rule is stated in 51 Am. Juris., page 554, as follows: