CHAPTER V. LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OF MUNICIPAL SECTION 48. The acknowledged supremacy of the legislature over a municipal corporation is not so absolute that it cannot be restrained by the organic law of the State, which is always a limitation and cannot be contravened by the legislative body.1 It may be stated as the settled doctrine of law that, saving the extent limited by constitutional provisions, the legislature has the absolute power to create, change, modify or destroy municipal corporations at pleasure, and entirely irrespective of the wishes or consent of those composing the body politic. The political powers conferred upon a municipal corporation for the local government of a place are not vested rights as against the State.2 LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE IN LOCAL MATTERS. the weight of SECTION 49. According to the authority the legislature of a State cannot control 1 "The supremacy of the legislative authority over municipal corporations is not, however, in all respects, unlimited; but the limitations must be sought either in the National or State constitution; and if not there found, in terms or by fair implication, they do not exist." Dillon, Mun. Corp. (3d ed.), Par. 65. • Public or municipal corporations are established for the local government of towns or particular districts. The special powers conferred on them are not vested rights as aganist the state, but being wholly political exist only during the will of the general legislature, otherwise there would be numberless petty governments existing within the state forming a part of it but independent of the control of the sovereign power. Such powers may at any time be repealed or abrogated by the legislature, either by general law operating upon the whole state, or by special act altering the powers of the corporation. Sloan vs. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.), 361. the action of municipal corporations by compulsory legislation in respect to their property rights and exclusively local affairs and concerns. In People vs. Hurlburt, 24 Mich., 44, Judge Cooley said: "These municipal corporations are of two-fold character; the one public as regards the State at large, in so far as they are its agents in government, the other private in so far as they are to provide the local necessities and conveniences for their own citizens ** * As to the acquisitions they may make in their latter capacity as mere corporations, it is neither just nor is it competent for the legislature to take away or to deprive the local community of the benefit thereof *** Conceding to the State the authority to shape the municipal organizations at its will, it would follow that a similar power of control might be exercised by the State as regards the property which the corporation has acquired, or the rights in the nature of property which have been conferred upon it. There are cases which assert such power, but they are opposed to what seem to me the best authorities, as well as the soundest reason. The municipality, as an agent of the government, is one thing; the corporation, as an owner of property, is in some particulars to be regarded in a very different light." LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OVER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY. SECTION 50. Where a municipal corporation acquires property in its private and proprietary character, such property is invested with all the security of the private rights of the individual, but it is otherwise where the property is held as an agency of the State government for the performance of strictly public duties, in which latter case the legislature possesses unlimited control. "A municipal corporation is an agency to regulate and administer the internal concerns of a locality, but duties may be imposed on it not local in their nature, so that it possesses two classes of rights, public and private. In respect to the one class, it is merely the agent of the State, subject to its control; in respect to the other, it is the agent of the inhabitants of the place, and maintains the character and relations of individuals, and is not subject to the absolute control of the legislature. Of this class is the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property." " MUNICIPAL FUNDS AND REVENUES. SECTION 51. The undoubted power of the legislature to appropriate the revenues of the State for any purpose which it may regard as calculated to promote public good, includes the revenues of municipal corporations for any purpose connected with their past or present condition, saving only such revenues as may by the law creating them be for special and private purposes. This principle of law is amply and concisely set forth in the case of People vs. Power, 25 Ill., 187. "The revenues of a county are not the property of the county in the sense in which that of a private person or corporation is regarded. The whole State has an interest in the revenue of a county, and for the public good the legislature must have the power to direct its application. An act, therefore, amending the charter of the city of Springfield and providing that after certain "New Orleans, etc., R. Co. vs. New Orleans, 26 La. Ann., 478. control of the legislature, save that the legislature cannot divert it to a use clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the condemnation or dedication. Clinton vs. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 24 Iowa, 455. expenditures are allowed the county of Sangamon and the city, the surplus of the county taxes shall be divided between the city and the county in proportion to the amount collected from each, the city's portion to be applied in repairing streets and building and repairing bridges in the city, is not unconstitutional." The legislature has the right to repeal so much of an act incorporating a municipal corporation as gives authority to its officers to grant licenses for the sale of ardent spirits, whether the money to be derived from the sale of such licenses was especially appropriated to the support of paupers, or otherwise." The legislature possesses the undoubted power to compel a municipality to enter into a contract or incur a debt in matters of general and public concern, in the absence of a local right to act independently of the State; but in those matters or duties purely local and not affecting the people of the State at large, the legislature cannot authorize a contract to be made, or create a debt, without the consent of the corporation. Justice Cooley in the case of People vs. Detroit, 28 Mich., 228, said: "The proposition which asserts the amplitude of legislative control over municipal corporations, when confined, as it should be, to such corporations as agencies of the State in its government, is entirely sound. They are not created exclusively for that purpose, but have other objects and purposes peculiarly local, and in which the State at large, except in conferring the power and regulating its exercise, is legally no more concerned than it is in the individual and private concerns of its several citizens." 5 Gutzweller vs. People, 14 Ill., 142. visors of Yolo Co., 47 Cala., 233; Green vs. Swift, 47 Cal., 536. MUNICIPAL CONTRACTS AND GRANTS-LIMITATIONS. SECTION 52. While municipal corporations are subject at all times to the control of the legislature, yet the State may make a contract with, or a grant to them, which it could not subsequently impair or resume; for in such a case, the municipal corporation is to be regarded as a private company. And, although the public may derive a common benefit therefrom, yet the corporation stands on the same footing as respects such grant, or contract, as would any body of persons upon whom like privileges were conferred." Whenever a municipal corporation engages in things not public in their nature, it acts as a private individual-no longer legislates, but contracts, and is as much bound by its engagements as is a private person. It is not in the power of the legislature, therefore, to authorize the violation of such a contract." When the State enters into a contract with a municipal corporation the subordinate relation of the corporation ceases, and an equality arises which exists between all contracting parties. The control of the legislature over the corporation can be exercised only in subordination to the principle which secures the inviolability of contracts." LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS AND OFFICES. SECTION 53. The power and authority of the state legislature over municipal officers hinges upon whether the particular office is a municipal or a state office. If the office is an instrumentality or agency of the state government, the legislature may, unless • County of Richland vs. County of Lawrence, 12 Ill., 1. ' Western Savings Fund Soc. VS. Philadelphia, 31 Pa. St., 185. Grogan vs. San Francisco 18 Cala., 590. |