A manufacturing enterprise in a communi ty is not a public purpose ; Citizens' S. & L. Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 655, 22 L. Ed. 455 a leading case, in which Miller, J., rendered the opinion of the court, and con sidered also the subject of railroad aid bonds, as well as what is a public purpose. (See BoNn as to railroad aid bonds.) A legislature can authorize a city or town to tax its inhabitants only for public pur poses; Opinion of the Justices, 150 Mass. 592, 24 N. E. 1084, 8 L. R. A. 487; Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1, 5 Sup. Ct. 416, 28 L. Ed. 896 ; Attorney General v. Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400 ; Mather v. Ottawa, 114 Ill. 659, 3 N. E. 216.
A statute providing for a special tax on corporations to establish free scholarships in a state university is unconstitutional ; State v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 45 S. W. 245, 40 L. R. A. 280, 65 Am. St. Rep. 653, where the cases as to what is a public purpose are col lected. So of loans to aid in rebuilding parts of a city destroyed by fire ; Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 454, 15 Am. Rep. 39 ; Feldman v. Charleston, 23 S. C. 57, 55 Am. Rep. 6; a city water plant; loans by cities in aid of private manufacturing enterprises; Citizens' S. & L. Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 655, 22 L. Ed. 455 ; aid of private educational enter prises; Curtis's Adm'r v. Whipple, 24 Wis. 350, 1 Am. Rep. 187; Jenkins v. Andover, 103 Mass. 94 ; though no tuition fee is charged ; Mullen v. Juenet, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 1; a bounty for growing forest trees ; Deal v. Mississippi County, 107 Mo. 464, 18 S. W. 24, 14 L. R. A. 622 ; a pension for the blind ; Auditor of Lu cas County v. State, 75 Ohio St. 114, 78 N. E. 955; so a tax on fire insurance companies pre miums (local) for the benefit of disabled fire men ; 2Etna Fire Ins. Co. v. Jones, 78 S. C. 445, 59 S. E. 148, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1147, 125 Am. St. Rep. 818.
Public purpose in this connection "has no relation to the urgency of the public mind, or to the extent of the public benefit to follow." People v. Salem, 20 Mich. 452, 4 Am. Rep. 400.
It is an essential rule of taxation that the purpose for which a tax is levied "should be one which in an especial manner pertains to the district within which it is proposed that the contribution shall be collected. . . . A state purpose must be accomplished by a state taxation, a county purpose by a county taxation, etc." Cooley, Tax. 104.
Apportionment, which is a necessary ele ment of taxation, is a matter of legislation ; Cooley, Tax. 175. Judge Cooley classifies the taxes as specific, ad valorem, and those ap portioned by special benefit. He suggests as general principles, that while the districts are discretionary, the basiseof apportionment must be applied throughout the district and cannot embrace persons or property outside of it. There may be a diversity in methods
of collecton ; the tax does not fail because the rule of apportionment cannot in all cases be enforced, and exemptions, though per missible, must not be in the nature of special and invidious discriminations against individ uals.
While perfect equality is unattainable, only statutes based upon false and unjust prin ciples or producing gross inequality will jus tify the interposition of the courts. See Grim v. School Dist., 57 Pa. 433, 98 Am. Dec. 237; Walton v. Riley, 85 Ky. 413, 3 S. W. 605. The 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States was not intended to compel the states to adopt an iron rule of equality or prevent classification; it is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class ; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 13 Sup. Ct. 721, 37 L. Ed. 599.
A tax is uniform when it operates with the same effect in all places Where the subject of it is found, and is not wanting in such uni formity because the thing is not equally dis tributed in all parts of the United States; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 5 Sup. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798. Accordingly a different rule of taxation may be prescribed for rail road companies from that for individuals; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 663.
"The whole argument of a right under the federal constitution to challenge a tax law on the ground of inequality in the burdens resulting from the operation of the law is put at rest by the decision in Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. Pa., 134 U. S. 232, 10 Sup. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892." Merchants' Bank v. Pa., 167 U. S. 461, 17 Sup. Ct. 829, 42 L. Ed. 236.
The requirement of uniformity imposed by the constitution on congress in levying excise taxes is not intrinsic, but geographic ; Billings v. U. S., 232 U. S. 261, 34 Sup. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. -. • "Direct taxes must be apportioned, while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States. But while yielding im plicit obedience to these constitutional re quirements, it is no part of the duty of this court to lessen, impede or obstruct the ex ercise of the taxing power by merely abstruse and subtle distinctions as to the particular nature of a specified tax, where such dis tinction rests more upon the differing theories of political economists than upon the prac tical nature of the tax itself." Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 19 Sup. Ct. 522, 43 L. Ed. 786.