Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-04-11
The Municipal Judgeship.
To the Editor of the Globe.


1t is said that if fellow throws mud
on another, it is great aggravation of
the offense if the aggressor tries after
wards to rub it in. The pretended cleo
ton, last fall, of Mr.. Burr to the office of
municipal judge of this city was, in it.
self, dirty enough, but when Republi-
can legislature, by deceitful and uncon-
stitutional special act, attempts to brace
up and legalize such election, that, in
deed, may be said to be an attempt to rub
the dirt it.
That the election of municipal judge, last
November, was illegal is admitted by all
who know anything about the law relat-
ing to that matter. Indeed, Mr.. Burr,
in procuring the passage of such legaliz-
ing act, and the legislature in passing it,
admit the illegality of such election; for
if it was legal, why did the legislature
enact bill to legalize it? If November
last was not the time for holding the
election for municipal judge, any more
than it was for the election Of any other
city officer, then of course there
was no election of municipal Judge
at that time, and how can the legislature
| legalize an election that never was au-
thorized or directed by law at that time,
but which was specially directed to be
held in May next?
The effect of the legalizing clause in
the act, then, is simply an attempted
election of Mr. Burr to the Office in ques-
ton by the legislature, and that, too, for
four and half years; because the act,
| also, artfully provides that the next cleo
ton shall be in May, 1885, But unfortu-
nately for the adhesiveness of Mr.. Burr
to that judicial seat, this Legislative plas-
ter will not help him to stick, for al
though he, in common with the cOnstitu-
tional wreckers, may not care much for
any inhibition of the constitution that
NAV stand in the way of his designs, yet
that instrument, after providing for the
| judgships of the supreme, district and
probate courts, and justices of the peace,
| also provides in article 6, section 8, that
| call judges other than those provided for
In this constitution, shall be elected By the
electors of the judicial district, county or
city for which they shall be created, not
for longer term than seven years"
That does not say word about the
legislature electing any judge, and
what was the legislature doing when it
tried to legalize an illegal election of an
officer but to attempt to elect such officer
itself?
But this is not ALL A slight glance at
| the act in question will show that who
ever drew it was like the Dutchman's
| deg, that got so smart that he invented
the new trick of jumping across deep
Of two hut &C.. o.
| of the first jump. The constitution,
article four, section twenty seven, says:
"No law shall embrace more than one
subject, which shall be expressed in its
title" The title to the act in question
eleven 11 of chapter eighty-six 1867 of the
hundred and seventy-six (1S76) relating
to the city of St. Paul, approved March
first, (D, one thousand eight hundred and
seventy six, Qs76), relating to judges of
the m unicipal court of said city" The
distinct subjects, viz: First livery gener-
ously)-That the municipal judges elect
ed in 1876, for four years, shall hold their
offices for the term for which they We're
elected When this act passed QsSD
ond there comes the little joker)-"And
that the election of said judge at the
annual election held in November, one
thousand eight hundred and eighty,
1850, be, and the same is legalized
and IN all respects validat-
ed" Thirdly-That the next
election for municipal judge shall not
trouble the dear people again until May,
1885.
Now, are not the subjects of the legall-
cation of Mr. Burr's election in Novem-
Der last, and of fixing the time for the
next election, two different and distinct
and different subjects? Does one of them
relate or IN any way depend upon the
other? Is the legalization of Mr. Burr's
pretended election, by any possible con-
struction or intendment, in any way ina
piled or included or intended to be sus-
pected of being suggested by or in the
title of the act? Is not the object of this
specious and misleading title obvious?
Was it not used as blind to keep out of
public sight and criticism, as much as
possible, this attempted legalization of
an illegal election, to take advantage of
legislative election if possible, and final
ly to hedge off all interference by post
poning the legal time for such election
(which is the coming May until May,
1885?
This spread of Mr.. Burr's to illegally
hold on to this Office, like cat falling
down chimney and catching at every
thing, we trust will not avail him if
Democrats of st. Paul are at all awake
to their own interests. Let municipal
Judge be included in the election notice
and let us see if the election for that i'm
portant office will go by default this
time.