Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-12-23
THE MUNICIPAL JUDGESHIP.
Gribble Still Hopeful Of Securing His
Rights.

Rights.
The contest over the municipal court
judgeship, or rather the proceedings insti-
tuted by Edwin Gribble to- prove the va
lidity of the act,of 1876 authorizing that
the election shall take place on the 4th OF
May instead of in the fall, came, to the
front again yesterday, when an5applica-
ton for a writ of mandamus was made to
Judge Wilkin against the judges of cleo
ion of the Third precinct of the Fourth
ward. The case is that of the State ex
rel. Edwin Gribble against Mike Lux,
James Grace and John Libbey,. judges of
election, for mandamus compelling
them to recount and return to the city
clerk the ballots cast for the relator in
the ward named, as candidate for munic-
ipal judge on the 4th day of last May
The application refers to the act of the
legislature of 1875, authorizing the cleo
ton for municipal Judge to take place on
the 4th of May, 1876 and 1880, and every
fourth year thereafter 1t is alleged by
relatOr that on the 4th of May, 1880,
divers and sundry votes were cast for him
as candidate for municipal judge, which
were counted but not returned to the city
clerk. AT the precinct of the ward named
it is claimed that from seven to ten ballots
were cast for petitioner: that in not re-
turning the votes, he was defrauded out
of the legal rights and emoluments of
said Office Wherefore he asked for writ
of mandamus compelling defendants to
recount and turn over the said votes.
| The writ was allowed by Judge Wilkin,
and is returnable on Monday, the 9th
inst, at 10 o'clock
The city council is so limited in regard
| to the regulations of vehicles The pow
er given is contained in subdivision
eleven of said section ''to regulate and
at reasonable rate to license hacks,
carts, Omnibusses, trucks, wagons and
other vehicles engaged in hauling or car
rying, for hire, and the charges of the
drivers of such vehicles
The principle is well understood (ir
this State it is distinctly laid down in
city VS.. Ladder, Mimi, 203,) that in tho
exercise of legislative authority on the
power of making ordinances for the gov.
eminent of this city, the municipality
has but special and limited jurisdiction
| sits power cannot be extended by intend
ment or implication but must be confined
| within the express grant of the legisla
ture''
am of opinion that the ordinance
| in question is unauthorized by the charter
provision.
The charter gives authority to the city
council to make ordinances regulating
vehicles engaged in carrying for hire
No other vehicles are named, and under
the well known rule of construction il
must be held that the power to regulate
them is withheld. The council can regu
flate vehicles engaged in carrying for hir'
and no others. But the ordinance, in 81
far as it regulates vehicles at all, under
takes to regulate all vehicles for the con
veyance of passengers, luggage or bag
gage, whether carrying for hire or not
This is clearly the exercise of power no
granted by the legislature. Whether TIN
power to regulate vehicles-which mean
power within reasonable limits to pre-
scribe the manner in which they shall b.
used-includes power to circumscribe TIN
limits of the physical movements of TIN
person in charge of the vehicle Will,
awaiting employment, may be question
able but need not be determined in view
of what was before said The ordinance
is invalid and the prisoner will be dis
H.