upr000160 185

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: