upr000160 200

Mr. 1. E. House 12 April 2, 1952 functions are strictIf governmental in character or pro-prletary in character* In 51 .An* laris* at page 413 the rule is stated as followsi *It Is well settled that money may fee raised fey taxation in order to enable the state or a subdivision thereof to furnish to its inhabitants one of the necessities and conveniences of life where the enter­prise is of such a character that it can not he undertaken by privet® individuals without the aid of a franchise from the state, the exercise of the power of emi­nent domain, or the use of the public streets as a location for permanent struc­tures* Thus, the furnishing of water to the inhabitants of a city for domestic use, which ordinarily requires the exercise of eminent domain to secure a sufficient sup­ply of water and to provide a location for aqueducts, and the use of the public streets to lay pipes for distribution, Is clearly a public purpose, although a waterworks system could not be established at the public ex­pense solely or principally for the purpose of supplying a few large factories with wa­ter** There are many eases collected in Volume 35 of *W©rds and Phrases* under the heading *Public Purposes* indicat­ing that it is constitutionally valid to raise money by taxation and to appropriate it for the purpose of engaging In proprietary operations* The following are some of the eases which are typical of the cases announcing this rule) Cit McLaughlin v * Hqnalnft Authority of ,t£e of Las Yagas (Nevada, 1951)• 227 Pac* 200, holding that the provision of hous­ing fey the Housing Authority of the City of Las V«gas was for a public purpose. Gallardo v* if 1# Pad. ( M X 91$, holding water resources for domes! Puerto Hlco gt* i« 4 P. So*. the cohservstioa of domestic use, irrigation, etc., under the Water Fewer Act of Puerto Hlco was for a public purpose justifying the levy­ing of a tax therefor.