Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-04-22
SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS or CASES FILED sIrUR-
DAP.

DEcIsIONs or CASES FILED slTUR-
DAP.
Joseph @. Cunger, appellant, U.s.. Dante, d. Her
r1u, David Burt, as State Supt. Of Pub. In
stT,ctioa Of The State Of Minnesota, and Geo.
p. Wilson, as the Attorney General Of the State
Of Minnesota, respondents:
OPINION.
With the wisdom or policy of the statute
under consideration courts have rightfully no
concern. The remedy for injudicious legisla-
ton rests with the Legislature where it ia sup
posed, it may be more safely left than with the
ence which the people constantly exercise
through frequent elections over that depart
ment of their government. To the judiciary |
belongs the more restricted duty OF passing |
upon the validity of legislative enactments as |
being within or without the boundaries as
signed to the law-making power by constitu- |
tional law. The sole injury, therefore, in this !
as in everynother case of this character respects
the extent of legislative. authority, nnder
the Federal and State constitutions, |
over the subject matter of the statute |
which is impugned because of its alleged in
validity. In the prosecution of this injury it
must always be remembered that under the
American system of government the people are
recognized as possessing in their primary or
gained capacity the absolute and complete
power of legislation as fully and to the same
extent as belongs to every uncontrolled sover-
eighty; that in the organization of the Federal
and State systems of government they have
conferred upon the former by the constitution
of the United States exclusive legislative power
in respect TO certain matters, and prohibited its
exercise in respect to others, and that, save as
thus conferred or forbidden, they have in this
State entrusted with the legislative department
which they have created the whole power of
making laws which they originally possessed,
subject only to such restrictions and limitations
upon its exercise as they have prescribed in the
State constitution. Plenary legislative
power is, therefore. the rule, while
want of it is the exception. As sequence
it logically follows that every statute duly
passed by the State legislature is presumably
valid, and this presumption is conclusive UNI
less it aifirmatively appears to be in conflict
with some provision of the federal or State
constitution; and in order to Justify court
in pronouncing it invalid, because of its viola
ton of some clause of the State constitution,
it's repugnancy Herewith must be SO clear.
plain and palpable as to have no unreasonable
doubt or hesitation upon the judicial mind:
Ames vs. Lake Sup. and Miss. railway COM
pany, 81 Mimi. 1872; Fletcher VS.. Peck, 6
Cody Const. Lines 81, 164 and ITS; Sharpless
vs.. Philda, 81, Pa. St. lat.
! Conceding therefore to the fullest extent the
contention Of appellant that the powers assum-
ed by the State under the provisions of the
the statute in question in pre-
scribing what kind of text books
shall be exclusively used in the public schools,
in directing how. by whom. and on what terms,
| they shall be purchased, distributed and sold,
and in giving to one individual for q definite
period of time the exclusive contract and
monopoly of furnishing the same. work radi-
\ cha IN s%r of
mon school system by withdrawing from all
local supervision and control matters which
have hitherto been regarded an most wisely left
to the district authorities and the patrons OF
these institutions, and that such change il
vicious in principle, unwise in policy, and ut
terly subversive of those principles of loca
self-government which have heretofore pre-
vailed the system; still the change is one which
the courts are powerless to prevent, however
great OF certaio the apprehended evils, unless
it can be clearly demonstrated that the Legisla
ture, in its enactment, has exercised some for
hidden power and violated some specific
provision of paramount law. That the prope
education of all its citizens vitality concern
the permanent prosperity and public welfar
of the State is not controverted. Whateve
provision therefore may be necessary to the at
tainment of this end, it is clearly within TIL
jurisdiction of the Legislature, the repre-
Q sentative of the sovereign law making powe
of the State to make, subject only to such re
strictions as are imposed upon the exercise o
: the power by the fundamental law.
: The whole question also of the necessity Q
expediency Of any particular measure wit
: reference to this matter is one of L. islativ
: and not judicial cognizance. In the absenc
of any constitutional prohibition. the who'll
matter of the establishment of public schools
! the course of instruction to be pursued there
I in, how they shall be supported, upon VIVA
!. terms and conditions people shall be permitte
! tn >orfInS fhn hnro E{e NJ
q ford-in fine, all matters pertaining to thei
: government and administration, come clearl
:, within the range of proper legislative author
, ity. This brings us to the question, which
really the sole one in this case, whether til
present measure in any way conflicts with an
9 constitutional provision inhibiting or limitin
: legislative power upon this subject. The onl
: clause in the State constitution upon whic
f any objection to the statute before us is or ca
be vested with any show of reason, is fonnd j
sec. l, art. 8, which is as follows: 1.-THE stabi
:, ity of a republican form of government d.
u pending mainly upon the intelligence of tn
: people, it shall be the duty of the Legislator
: to establish general and uniform system {
9 public schools" It is commended that the lai
9 clause of this section compels uniformity
q text books in all public schools established u,
. der legislative authority, and that the prese1
i asmuch as it specially exempts from the ope
s alton of its provisions all speci;
J. school districts, created under speci,
,, laws. The claim is that the same rules whic
Il the Legislature directs shall be applied to IL
! ordinary common schools and school district.
in respect to the use and procurement of te,
books, must also be extended to all indepent
?: ent and special school districts. The rule ,
y uniformity contemplated by this constitution
10 al provision which the Legislature is require
l. to observe, has reference to the system whic
ia it may provide, and not the district organic
| hat ha fah1 iaho 1p1o ho
may differ in respect to size, grade, corpora
powers and franchises, may seem to the LIE
- islature best under different circumstances al
l. conditions, but the principle of uniformity
to not violated if the system which is adopted
D. made to have q general and uniform appreci
s. ton to the entire State SO that the same graz
N or class of public schools may be enjoyed
al all localities similarly situated al
=. having the requisite conditions for tn
- particular class or grade. Hence the establis
)! ment under our general laws of common scho
a districts, and independent school districts. ty
to size, population, grade and corporate power
NJ though alike in most of their functions,
"a their public character, and in affordipg up
=, like terms the means for obtaining comm
y school education to all resident scholars Of t
70 requisite age, is not in violation of the cons
"a tutional provision now under consideration.
OF Irrespective. however, of these conside,
f. tions, it is certain that the imposition of
n duty is not limitation of power. The dire
a+ ton to establish a general and uniform syste
~ of public schools neither prohibits n
N restraints the Legislature from provide
re other public schools in addition to tho
included in the general system,
from creating, as it has in seve
instances, by way of exception to the gene
ae uniformity, special school districts to m,
ng create and establish different classes and graz
ds of nuhlic schools and school 6istricta necess