The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1876-08-31
Constitutional Limitations.
Editor anti Monopotist.

EdtOr ARh> W0nOpofisf.
In my first letter written for the purpose of
showing how the constitution of the state Of
Minnesota had Teen violated by the Legislature,
for the purpose Of placing two men upon the
bench Of the district court, without1election,
allowed the question to pass as taken for grant
ed that the legislature hada right to increase
the number OF district court judges. This is
another matter Of grave import and should
have been carefully onsidered by the legisla-
ture, before il had the temerity to pass the SO
called amendment giving itself the power to
create judges, when it is positively forbidden
hy the organic act See SIC. article state
constitution, which is follows, 'ths 1.-THE state
shall be divided into districts, and in each
district, one judge shall be elected by the eiec-
tors, thereof, who shall constitute said conrt y
The same provision is prescribed for the pro-
bate court in this language, lit shall b. held
nv one judge who shall b elected by the vo-
tiers Of the county in which be shall s.rve y
Here is clearly constitutional tar to |, zisla-
tive action in the matter OF creating more
judges for courts than the number limited by
the organic law. Il is true the legislature as
sumed the power Of making the so-called
amendment to the constitution, 50 as TO give it
acts the s.mblance Of law, but are such acss
laws Let Us SEE. First We bear in mind the
difference between the constitution of th. Uni
ted States, and the state constitution, as re-
der them. The government Of the United
States l. one OF enumerated powers, the govern
ments o! the states are possess Of all the gen
eral powers Of legislation. Wen a law OF con.
gress Is assailed Is void, We look in the nation
al constitution to see il the grant is Of specified
powers and is broad enough to embrace it: but
when . stale law is attacked on the safe ground
/ it is presumed to be valid, unless We are able
to discover it is prohibited. We look to the
constitution OF the United States for grants Of
legislative power but in the constitution Of tn.
state to ascertain, If any limitations have been
/ imposed upo.l the comple power with which
the legislative department Of the state was visl.
. ted In its creation. c. 1kneSs can pass no Law .
but such as the constitution authorizes either
expressly or by Gle implication. While We
admit that the state Legislature has jurisdiction
OF all subjects unless restricted I. , limitations
The legislature clearly, has no restraints, and
Is perhaps bound BY none, except such a. Ale
imposed bT the constitution, but " here those
restraints exist the legislative Is impeTiively
bound to respect them. The constitution il !
legislative act by the people themselves in their
sovereign capacity and Is therefore the para
mount Law, the legislature cannot infringe !;
with impunity, and the people alone can change
T. Its OBJECT l. not to grant legislative powes
but TO connne and restrain il, and any act 81
the legislature expanding thu powers Of Ii.
constitution are Void ab initio.
II would not b. proper to 1T aside, or de-
clare Foid legislative act, upon mere cor
nlrt Of Interpretation, but when the language
OF the constitution i plain aud precise in n.
hmifafions. the duty Of the judiciary Is para.
mount, and such acts must Be disr9arded.
The restraints upon the Legislature with r.
gard TO the organic law il two fold. First all Il
sces must be confined to the written limitation
contained therein. Second the lesialatule i
nnea from snla1ging the Provlnons q u
mder such enlaFss.t SpugInf 10 ~ Gig