743 or individuals that clearly come within the provisions of the statute will be held subject to the burden.742 Exemptions are not liberally construed, and those remedies alone that may be given by law for the enforcement of the tax can be pursued, and in the manner and court prescribed.745 25 Atl. 271; State v. Witherspoon, 75 N. C. 222. The illegality of the highway cannot be urged as an objection to the enforcement of the poll tax. State v. Smith, 103 N. C. 403; In re Delinquent Poll Tax (R. I.) 44 Atl. 805. A provision for imprisonment upon a failure to pay poll tax is not in violation of constitution, art. 1, sections 11 and 15 relating to imprisonment of a debtor. 742 On Yuen Hai Co. v. Ross, 14 Fed. 338. Temporary employment as laborers within a road district does not make one a "resident" and subject to the performance of road labor. Ward v. State, 88 Ala. 202; Ward v. City of Little Rock, 41 Ark. 526. Where the constitution provides that convicts may be worked on "public improvements," a city ordinance forbidding their employment on the city streets is invalid. Porter v. State, 141 Ind. 488; Dees v. State (Miss.) 7 So. 326; Watkins v. State (Miss.) 11 So. 532. Temporary sickness will excuse a person from work on a road when legally required. Van Dien v. Hopper, 5 N. J. Law (2 Southard) 764; Woolard v. McCullough, 23 N. C. (1 Ired.) 432; Frasier v. Road Com'rs for Christ Church Parish, 3 Rich. Law (S. C.) 326. Persons cannot be compelled to work out a road tax outside the highway district in which they reside. See, also, as holding the same, De Tavernier v. Hunt, Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 599, and Mason County v. Simpson, 13 Wash. 250. 53 744 State v. Hathcock, 20 S. C. 419; Cantrell v. Pinkney, 30 N. C. (8 Ired.) 436; State v. Johnston, 118 N. C. 1188. 743 Hill v. City of Birmingham, 73 Ala. 74; Lewin v. State, 77 Ala. 45; Sherrick v. Town of Houston, 29 Ill. App. 381; Town of Pleasant v. Kost, 29 Ill. 490, McDonald v. County of Madison, 43 Ill. 22; Town of Fenton v. Peters, 50 Ill. App. 41; Leedy v. Town of Bourbon, 12 Ind. App. 486, 40 N. E. 640; Porter v. State, 141 Ind. 488, 40 N. E. 1061; Winfield Tp. v. Wise, 73 Ind. 71. But see the case of Martin v. Gadd, 31 Iowa, 75; Sanders v. Levi, 42 La. Ann. 406, 7 So. 692; City of Faribault v. Misener, 20 Minn. 396 (Gil. 347); Chidsey v. Town of Scranton (Miss.) 12 So. 545; State v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 90 Mo. 166, 2 S. W. 275; Moore v. Vaughan, 127 Mo. 538, 30 S. W. 162; State v. Womble, 112 N. C. 862, 17 S. E. 491, 19 L. R. A. 827; State v. Craig, 81 N. C. 588; State v. Covington, 125 N. C. 641. Sickness a valid excuse for a failure to work roads as required. Jackson v. State, 101 Tenn. 138, 46 S. W. 450; Ex parte Taylor (Tex. Cr. R.) 37 S. W. 422. 744 Waters v. State, 117 Ala. 189, 23 So. 28; City of Montgomery v. Shoemaker, 51 Ala. 114; Brown v. State, 63 Ala. 97; Coulson v. Harris, 43 Miss. 728; Gross v. State, 4 Tex. App. 249. 745 Bettis v. Nicholson, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 349; Geneva County v. Hall, 93 Ala. 488; Ford v. State, 51 Ark. IV. THE DISBURSEMENT OF PUBLIC REVENUES. § 410. In general. 411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. The distribution of public moneys in different funds. The appropriation of public moneys for specific purposes. Investment of public moneys. Public revenue; limitations of amount in its disbursement. 418. Same subject; necessary governmental expenses. 419. 420. 421. Statutory costs. Public buildings. The leasing, repair and furnishing of public buildings. 422. Local or internal improvements. 446. 447. The authority; by whom; when and how executed. Proceedings; the petition and its averments. 103; Sims v. Hutcheson, 72 Ga. 437; 949; State v. Cox, 52 La. Ann. 2049; State v. Smith, 98 N. C. 747, 4 S. E. 517; Commissioners of Roads v. Trescot, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 278; State v. Telfair, 130 N. C. 645, 40 S. E. 976. 449. The appointment of commissioners or viewers, 450. Report of commissioners or viewers. 451. Damages and benefits. 452. Assessments and methods of apportionment. 455. Expenditures in connection with a supply of water. 456. Manner of exercise of the power. 457. Purchase of water plant already constructed. 458. Extra territorial authority. 459. Sale or lease of municipal plant. 460. The power to construct includes what. 461. The implied power to furnish water or to purchase appar 464. 465. Protection of water supply. Officials authorized to act for the municipality. 466. The right to delegate the construction to private enterprise. 467. Cost and manner of payment. 468. Water rentals and regulations. 469. Performance of contract for water supply. 470. 471. Performance and enforcement of contract for water supply. 472. Public expenditures in connection with a supply of light. 473. Nature of the power. 474. Acquirement of property for construction of lighting plant. 475. Charges for light supply; regulations. 410. In general. In preceding sections,748 the ordinary methods of raising revenue for the use of public corporations have been discussed and its disbursement will now be considered. In this respect the power of a public corporation is restricted by the application of the legal principles, namely, that it is not only a corporation and therefore of limited powers as compared with a natural person, but further, a corporation of a special character organized for particular purpose for carrying on some one or more of the functions of government for the advantage, good and benefit of the public in general instead of a particular individual. The powers of a public corporation are also restricted through the fact that it is an artificial person acting necessarily through agents.747 The purposes for which public moneys may be legally disbursed naturally fall into those for the maintenance of its government and political machinery; the care of dependants, including criminals, the sick and unfortunate, the indigent and defective classes; expenditures having for their purpose the preservation of the public health and safety including the maintenance of courts, police, militia, and fire protection, the inspection of foods and other commodities and buildings, the regulation of certain occupations, the enforcement of sanitary measures and other protective functions; disbursements for what may be termed the public convenience, namely, the construction of bridges, streets, parks and sewers with their care; disbursements having for their object the dissemination of culture and information, including the construction and maintenance of schools, libraries, public museums, public monuments and other objects of a similar character; the engaging in by the public corporation of what might be termed quasi private business enterprises including under this head the construction and operation of waterworks and lighting plants, the maintenance and care of public wharves, ferries, markets and rarely the doubtful purpose of the construction and maintenance of a transportation system. Examples of the expenditures of money for these various purposes will be considered in the succeeding sections and the law governing and limiting such disbursements given so far as settled. 746 §§ 300 et seq. 747 Bank of Chillicothe v. Town of Chillicothe, 7 Ohio, 31. § 411. The distribution of public moneys in different funds. It is an elementary principle that the state or one of its subordinate agencies exercises its revenue-producing powers only by virtue of the authority given indirectly by the legislature or di rectly by the people in constitutional convention. Such provisions are usually carefully drawn and necessarily so, having for their purpose in this respect the protection of the public treasury against extravagant, dishonest or corrupt guardians. The authority to levy taxes for specific purposes must exist,748 and that the expenditure of moneys thus raised be legal and proper, it must be within the time 749 and the purpose 750 for which collected. 748 Vance v. City of Little Rock, 30 Ark. 435; City & County of San Francisco v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 302, 43 Pac. 960. On the point mentioned in the text this case holds that "under Consolidation act requiring the board of supervisors of San Francisco city and county when making the levy of taxes for a fiscal year, to apportion and divide the taxes to certain specific funds, the board is limited to the funds therein named and is not authorized to subdivide the general fund and limit the subdivisions to the objects indicated." Town of New Milford v. Litchfield County, 70 Conn. 435. Where the authority to levy taxes for a specific purpose exists, the beneficiary may enforce the payment of the authorized amount. City of East St. Louis v. Board of Trustees, 6 Ill. App. 130. A corporation cannot be compelled by mandamus to levy a larger tax than its charter permits. Chestnut Tp. Highway Com'rs v. Newell, 80 Ill. 587; People v. Swigert, 107 Ill. 496. Any unexpected balance may be transferred to the general revenue fund. Stetson v. Kempton, 13 Mass. 272; Ryerson v. Laketon Tp., 52 Mich. 509; Daily v. Swope, 47 Miss. 367; Langhorne v. Robinson, 20 Grat. (Va.) 661; Jones v. Kolb, 56 Wis. 263. See, also, §§ 300, et seq., supra. 749 Board of Education of Newport v. Nelson, 22 Ky. L. R. 680, 58 S. W. 700. "Kentucky Statutes, § 3219, providing as to cities of the second class for a tax to defray the expenses of schools during the 'current fiscal year' refers to the fiscal year of the city, beginning the 1st day of January and ending the 31st day of December; and while the amount derived from the state school fund for the benefit of the city schools is to be devoted to the maintenance of the schools during the state fiscal year beginning the 1st of July and ending the 30th of June this amount should be apportioned between the city fiscal years." 750 Irwin v. Exton, 125 Cal. 622. Moneys collected by the city for the payment of interest on void waterworks bonds can be carried to the general funds of the city. Badger v. City of New Orleans, 49 La. Ann. 804, 21 So. 870, 37 L. R. A. 540. The payment from current revenues of accumulated debts and |