
    Lea versus Bumm.
    1. There is no good reason to doubt the constitutionality, of so much of the Act of August 5th 1870 as provides for the erection of public buildings in Penn square, in Philadelphia, and the raising of taxes for that purpose is an evident consequence of the lawful erection of the buildings.
    2. The main and largely executed puroose of an Act of Assembly will not be rendered void because other portions of the act, not called into life on account of their contingent relation to the main purpose of the act, are unconstitutional and void.
    January 4th 1877.
    Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson and Woodward, JJ. Williams, J., absent.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 4, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1876, No. 90.
    Assumpsit by Henry C. Lea, a tax-payer, against Henry Bumm, the collector of delinquent taxes of Philadelphia county, to recover back the public building taxes paid by him under protest.
    It appeared that the plaintiff paid the taxes in question to the deputy after a distress had been levied in one case and threatened in another case, and that he accompanied his payments by written protests against being compelled to pay. The defendant offered in evidence the Act of August 5th 1870 (Pamph. L. 1871, 1548), entitled “An Act to provide for the erection of all the public buildings,” and certain city ordinances relating to the same subject. The only question was as to the validity of the tax. The court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff took this writ of error and ’assigned this direction of the court for error.
    The case was submitted upon the arguments in Wheeler v. Rice, ante, p. 232, by J@. S. Miller, for the plaintiff in error, and P. JV. Willson and O. H. T. Oollis, for the defendant in error.
   The judgment of the court was entered January 15th 1877,

Per Curiam.

We perceive no sufficient ground to arrest the collection of taxes laid by the city upon the citizens under the ordinances in evidence, by declaring the tax of the plaintiff illegal. There is no good reason to doubt the constitutionality of so much of the Act of 5th August 1870, as provides for the erection of public buildings upon the Penn squares, after their selection as the site by a vote of the people. The raising of taxes for the purpose is an evident and germane consequence of the lawful erection of these buildings. If there be other portions of the act not called into life owing to their alternative contingent relation to the main purpose, to which effect has been given by the popular vote, they will not avoid the main and largely executed purpose of the law.

Judgment affirmed.  