crime, 806 the maintenance of a private free ferry,807 a particular bounty law for the killing of wolves, planting trees, and destroy Bush) 324; Gale v. Inhabitants of South Berwick, 51 Me. 174; People v. Village of Holly, 119 Mich. 637, 78 N. W. 665, 44 L. R. A. 677; State v. Moore, 37 Neb. 229, 55 N. W. 635; Spafford v. Town of Norwich, 71 Vt. 78, 42 Atl. 970; City of Winchester v. Redmond, 93 Va. 711. In some instances, however, express power is given to municipal councils to offer rewards for the apprehension and conviction of persons charged with committing certain offenses. New York Consol. Act, § 259; Biggar, Mun. Man. of Can. pp. 803 & 804, §§ 593-595; Crawshaw v. City of Roxbury, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) 374; Loveland v. City of Detroit, 41 Mich. 367; Janvrin v. Town of Exeter, 48 N. H. 83; Abel v. Pembroke, 61 N. H. 357. See as holding that such a right exists on the part of the government of the state of Illinois, Crawford County v. Spenney, 21 Ill. 288. It is also held by some courts that while subordinate public corporations such as counties, cities, etc., may have no power to offer such rewards for the arrest of violators of state laws, yet they have a limited authority to do this to secure the arrest of offenders against their local ordinances or by-laws. Huthsing v. Bousquet, 2 McCrary, 152, 7 Fed. 833; Butler v. McLean County, 32 Ill. App. 397; Ripley County Com'rs v. Ward, 69 Ind. 441; Grant County Com'rs v. Bradford, 72 Ind. 455; Butler v. City of Milwaukee, 15 Wis. 493. 806 Allen v. Board of State Auditors, 122 Mich. 324, 81 N. W. 113, "The as 47 L. R. A. 117. "The resolution authorizes the expenditure of the public moneys of the state for a purely private purpose. It is a mere gratuity for which the state received nothing, but on the contrary, incurred expense by reason of his arrest, trial and imprisonment. Section 45, art. 4 of the Constitution is as follows: sent of two thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public money or property for local or private purposes.' The resolution did not receive a two-thirds vote of the members of the senate. This provision is mandatory and cannot be evaded by calling a bill a 'joint resolution.' The above provision of the constitution is too clear and too valuable to be thus frittered away. Section 4, art. 8 of the constitution provides that 'the secretary of state, state treasurer and commissioner of the state land office shall constitute a board of state auditors to examine and adjust all claims against the state not otherwise provided for by general law.' The jurisdiction conferred upon this board by this provision of the constitution clearly means claims resting upon some legal basis. 'Claim' is defined to be 'a demand of a right or alleged right; a calling on another for something due or asserted to be due. The legislature can only authorize this board to pass upon claims such as are contemplated by the constitution. It cannot authorize the board to consider 807 Town of Jacksonport v. Watson, 33 Ark. 704. ing poisonous weeds held unconstitutional,80s the expense of public guests at or the construction of buildings for the use of celebrations or encampments, public banquets,809 the payment of pensions when not restricted to those performing services for the particular municipality providing the fund,810 the appropriation of moneys for the celebration of holidays when not expressly authorized by law,811 the purchase of vaccine points,812 the reim requests, petitions or claims for appropriations which are merely gratuities or which may be based upon sentimental or moral grounds. It is conceded by counsel for petitioner that he has not the semblance of any legal claim. * The people through their constitution have committed to the courts the sole jurisdiction to try persons charged with crime, and have made their judgments final and have also prohibited their public funds to be squandered in mere gratuities of this character." 808 Mute & Blind Inst. v. Henderson, 18 Colo. 98, 31 Pac. 714, 18 L. R. A. 398. But see Smith v. Nobles County, 37 Minn. 535, and Attorney General v. State Board of Judges, 38 Cal. 291. 809 Hale v. People, 87 Ill. 72; Law V. People, 87 Ill. 385; Higginson v. Inhabitants of Nahant, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 530; Kingman v. City of Brockton, 153 Mass. 255, 26 N. E. 998, 11 L. R. A. 123; Greenough v. Wakefield, 127 Mass. 275; Cornell v. Town of Guilford, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 510; Hodges v. City of Buffalo, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 110; Thrift v. Elizabeth City, 122 N. C. 31, 44 L. R. A. 427; Moore v. Hoffman, 2 Cin. R. (Ohio) 453; Stem v. City of Cincinnati, 6 Ohio N. P. 15; Com. v. City of Pittsburg, 183 Pa. 202; Austin v. Coggeshall, 12 R. I. 329. 810 Taylor v. Mott, 123 Cal. 497, 56 Pac. 256, citing and following Bourn v. Hart, 93 Cal. 321, 15 L. R. A. 431; Patty v. Colgan, 97 Cal. 251, 18 L. R. A. 744; Conlin v. San Francisco City & County Sup'rs, 99 Cal. 17, 21 L. R. A. 474. Taylor v. Mott, 123 Cal. 497, 56 Pac. 256. Relative to the point of the text the court in this case holds "St. 1895, p. 107, which requires every municipal corporation in which an exempt fire company exists to annually set apart a sum to be devoted to the relief of disabled exempt firemen residing therein without restricting the benefits to such as have performed service in the particular municipality providing the fund, is contrary to Const. art. 4, §§ 31, 32, which prohibit the legislature from making or authorizing a gift of public moneys." 811 City of New London v. Brainard, 22 Conn. 552. Fourth of July. Hood v. Town of Lynn, 83 Mass. (1 Allen) 103. Fourth of July. Gerry V. Inhabitants of Stoneham, 83 Mass. (1 Allen) 319; Tash v. Adams, 64 Mass. (10 Cush.) 252. Anniversary of the surrender of Cornwallis. Love v. City of Raleigh, 116 N. C. 296, 21 S. E. 503, 28 L. R. A. 192. Fourth of July. Hodges v. City of Buffalo, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 110; Austin v. Coggeshall, 12 R. I. 329. 812 Daniel v. Putnam County, 113 Ga. 570, 38 S. E. 980, 54 L. R. A. 292. bursement of private individuals for moneys expended in securing a decision holding certain county railroad bonds invalid,s13 the expenses attendant upon the passage of legislation,814 the purchase of uniforms for an artillery company,815 the expenses of a committee attending a convention of American municipalities,816 the appropriation of moneys for the maintenance of the national guard,817 the reimbusement of public officials losing public moneys through the failure, without their fault, of the depositary, and appropriations for the relief of the destitute,819 though the weight of authority is in favor of such action.820 813 Frankln County v. Layman, 34 Ill. App. 606. 814 Farrel v. Town of Derby, 58 Conn. 234, 7 L. R. A. 776, 34 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 391, note, p. 397; Henderson v. City of Covington, 77 Ky. (14 Bush) 312; Inhabitants of Frankfort v. Inhabitants of Winterport, 54 Me. 250; Thompson v. Inhabitants of Pittston, 59 Me. 545; Inhabitants of Westbrook v. Inhab itants of Deering, 63 Me. 231. In Mass. prior to the statute of 1889 this was the rule: See Minot v. Inhabitants of West Rocksbury, 112 Mass. 1; Coolidge v. Inhabitants of Brookline, 114 Mass. 592. But since that date and in Connecticut and New Hampshire under certain circumstances recoveries have been permitted for services rendered in opposing or securing legislation. Farrel v. Town of Derby, 58 Conn. 234, 7 L. R. A. 776, 34 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 391, note, p. 397; Mead v. Inhabitants of Acton, 139 Mass. 341; Connolly v. Beverly, 151 Mass. 437. Bachelder v. Epping, 28 N. H. 354. 815 Claflin v. Inhabitants of Hopkinton, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 502. 819 In re Relief Bills, 21 Colo. 62, 39 Pac. 1089; Synod of Dakota v. State, 2 S. D. 366, 14 L. R. A. 418. V. 818 816 Waters Bonvouloir, 172 Mass. 286, 52 N. E. 500. "The appointment of a committee 'to represent the city of Holyoke at the Convention of American Muncipalities' does not seem to be for any distinct public purpose, wthin the meaning of the charter of the city or of the general laws. The purpose, apparently, is to educate the committee generally with reference to all questions pertaining to municipal administration anywhere. It is not confined to the ascertainment of facts for the information of the board of aldermen of the city of Holyoke concerning questions actually pending before the board. * The general education of the mayor and aldermen upon all matters relating to municipalities in the United States and Canada is not, we think, a public purpose and cannot be paid for out of the funds of the city." * * 817 Knapp v. Kansas City, 48 Mo. App. 485. 818 Mercer v. Floyd, 24 Misc. 164, 53 N. Y. Supp. 433, citing Sutherland-Innes Co. v. Village of Evart, 30 C. C. A. 305; Dunham v. Inhab 820 See Chap. XI, subd. II, on this subject § 418. Same subject; necessary governmental expenses. Certain disbursements are recognized as necessary for the maintenance of government or for the care and protection of its citizens. Election expenses,821 the making and care of a system of public records available for general use,822 the current expenses of government 823 including the salary or fees of officials,824 the cost of legislative sessions, $25 the payment of rent or the expense of maintaining public buildings,826 the care and lighting of streets, the maintenance of a water system,828 the purchase of itants of Foxcroft, 91 Me. 367; Emerson v. Inhabitants of Foxcroft, 91 Me. 367. State v. Pike County, 144 Mo. 275; State v. Ziegenhein, 144 Mo. 283; Wisconsin Keeley Inst. Co. v. Milwaukee County, 95 Wis. 153, 36 L. R. A. 55. 821 Washington County Com'rs v. Menaugh, 13 Ind. App. 311; Marion County Com'rs v. Center Tp., 107 Ind. 584; Crawford County v. City of Meadville, 101 Pa. 573. 822 Erskine v. Steele County, 87 Fed. 630; Atchison, T. & S. R. Co. v. Kearney County Com'rs, 58 Kan. 19, 48 Pac. 583; State v. Shawnee County Com'rs, 57 Kan. 267; Lancey v. King County, 15 Wash. 9, 34 L. R. A. 817; Lund v. Chippewa County, 93 Wis. 927. 823 Foland v. Town of Frankton, 142 Ind. 546; Greer County Com'rs v. Watson, 7 Okl. 174; City of Wichita Falls v. Skeen, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 632, 45 S. W. 1037; Dwyer v. City of Brenham, 65 Tex. 526; Gladwin v. Ames, 30 Wash. 608, 71 Pac. 189. All expenses necessary to municipal existence are proper and valid although the city has reached the limit of its indebtedness. 824 People v. Onahan, 170 Ill. 449; Lebanon L. & M. Water Co. v. City Abb. Corp. Vol. II-6. of Lebanon, 163 Mo. 246, 63 S. W. 809. 825 Rice v. State, 95 Ind. 33 826 City of Rome v. McWilliams, 67 Ga. 106; Potts v. Bennett, 140 Ind. 71, 39 N. E. 518. The insuring of a public building a proper charge. Adams v. Morrill, 166 Mass. 303, 44 N. E. 224. A county cannot be compelled to furnish Justices a place in which to hold their courts under Pub. St. c. 22, § 5, which provides that "each county, except S. shall provide suitable court houses." See, also, People v. Village of Nyack, 18 App. Div. 318, 46 N. Y. Supp. 218. 827 White v. City of Decatur, 119 Ala. 476, 23 So. 999; Foland v. Town of Frankton, 142 Ind. 546; Mayo v. Town of Washington, 122 N. C. 5, 29 S. E. 343, 40 L. R. A. 163. This case holds that the erection of an electric light plant for lighting the streets of a city is not a necessary expense within the meaning of the constitutional provision. See, also, §§ 176 and 310, supra. 828 Manley v. Emlen, 46 Kan. 665; Smith v. Inhabitants of Dedham, 144 Mass. 177; Hequembourg v. City of Dunkirk, 49 Hun, 550, 2 N. Y. Supp. 447; Comstock v. City of Syracuse, 5 N. Y. Supp. 874. See, also, §§ 177 and 310, supra. ordinary supplies for office use,829 and the expense of special departments or boards including fire, police, park, health and educational.830 As a rule, all such expenses, as well as others of a similar character, 831 are held essential and necessary to the maintenance of corporate existence and the carrying out of the benificent purposes for which government is created. The payment 829 Saylor V. Nodaway County, 159 Mo. 520, 60 S. W. 1057; Garfield County Com'rs v. Isenberg, 10 Okl. 378, 61 Pac. 1067. 830 Montezuma County Com'rs v. San Miguel County Com'rs, 3 Colo. App. 137; Hover v. People, 17 Colo. App. 375, 68 Pac. 679; Hardy v. Inhabitants of Waltham, 44 Mass. (3 Metc.) 163; Allen v. Inhabitants of Taunton, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 485; Oktibbeha County Sup'rs v. Cottrell, 70 Miss. 117; East Tennessee University v. City of Knoxville, 65 Tenn. (6 Baxt.) 166; City of Denison v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 167; City of Sherman v. Smith, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 580, 35 S. W. 294. * * tak was to leave voluntary organizations of worthy ladies ing upon themselves one of the most important duties the state owes to its people, to bear the expense of that part of their charitable work done in response to commitments * * * would convict the lawmaking power of placing upon the statute books a very absurd piece of legislation. Any such construction must be rejected as indicated by the most familiar rules of statutory construction if one that is reasonable can be found. The idea advanced that a charitable corporation adopted by the state as an agency for the performance of public functions as to each child received, is left by the law to discover the particular subdivision of the county liable to compensate for its services and to contest the question of liability with such subdivision, is unreasonable in the extreme. We reach the conclusions that the police regulations in regard to the commitment of children to industrial school corporations fix the liability upon the counties from which the children are received in the absence of anything in the commitment to the contrary; that such is the meaning of the police regulations by necessary inference; that the language of the law admits find them were enacted. of a construction in accordance To say that the legislative intent therewith." 831 Board of Library Trustees v. Orange County Sup'rs, 99 Cal. 571; McBride v. Hardin County, 58 Iowa, 219; Wisconsin Industrial School for Girls v. Clark County, 103 Wis. 651, 79 N. W. 422, following Milwaukee Industrial School v. Mil. waukee County Sup'rs, 40 Wis. 328. The court here say: "Now the persons liable to be placed under guardianship under the Statutes in question belong to the classes of helpless unfortunates that the state is in duty bound, through some proper agency, to protect and care for. In recognition of that duty the statutes as we * * |