upr000160 201

Mr. W* H. House 13. April 2, 1952 State v* Smith (He.), tt $. V. 2d 37, ac­quisitionand operatlee 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 e city was for a public purpose for which public funds could fee used* Carroll v* City of Cedar falls (Iowa), 261 S . T 1 5 ? . Use case of Bysort r. City of St* Louis (Ho*), 11 S* V* 2<rio0| held that ihe aequi-sltion of land for an airport is for a public purpose within the meaning of the constitution authorising the collection of tax@s 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. H O Cal* App. 715. In Opinion to the Governor (Rhode Island). '70 Atl* * 0 1 7 # it Was held 'that the establish­ment of a public auditorium Is a public purpose for which public money could be spent, although a California ease holds that the operation of a city auditorium is a proprietary function* Sha-tor v* Long Beach. 163 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 that 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* 0» this subject there is a diversity of opinion, but the weight of authority appears to be that properties owed 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: