Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-04-14
The Municipal Judgeship.


the GLOBE on Monday that if last No
vcmber was not the legal time for our
city election, Mr.. Burr, legislative inter-
ference to the contrary Notwithstanding,
is not of right judge of the municipal
court; but as there is still some public
curiosity and question about the legal
time of such election, a statement of the
law on that subject may be interesting.
By special act of March S, 1874, chap
ter 2, section l, it is provided that the
city annual general election "for elective
officers" shall be held on the second
Tuesday IN December. By special act of
March 4, 1878, the time of holding such
election is changed from December, as
aforesaid, to the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in November. By special
act of March s, 1875, (which created the
municipal court and judgeship) it is pro-
vidcd that "thcre shall be elected at the
general city election in the year one
thousand eight hundred and seventy-six,
and every fourth year thereafter" etc,
one municipal judge, etc. Under this
provision, and the law cited of March 4,
1875, the election of municipal judge
would have taken place on the designat-
ed Tuesday in November, but by special
act of March l, 1876, the section of the
act of March 4, 1875, establishing Novem-
Der as the time for such election, is re-
pealed, whereby, of course, the operation
of the act of March 5, 1874, liking De-
cember as the time for such election, was
revived, so that if the election had taken
place in 1876, as directed, as above quot
ed, by the act of March s, 1875, it legally
must have taken place in December in
stead Of November. But this peripatetic
election seems to be not even
here left to take rest; for
the same section of the act
of March lst, 1876, that repealed the Sec
ton of the act of March 4th, 1875, fixing
the time for such election in November,
did not stop there, but for some inscru-
tible purpose, also provided that such
election for all elective city officers shall
be held on the "first Tuesday in May,
1877, and annually thereafter The next
section Of said act of March lst, 1876,
enumerates the municipal judge among
such city elective officers.
At the date of this last provision, March
1st, 1876, it is clear that the time for
such election was in December and not
in November 1t is also clear that this
same provision fixes the first Tuesday in
May of 1877, and annually thereafter, as
the legal time for such election. 1t,
therefore, only remains to be ascertained
if there is any law or reason for holding
such election at any other time than IN
May, since 1871 And here again, as by
this time we might expect, in this very
act of March LIST, 1876, we find interpolat
ed. with bungling artfulness, section
eleven, which reads as follows; "The
Judge of the municipal court and the
TWO special judges created by he act OF
March s, 1876, shall hold their offices for
the term which they were respectively
elected; and their successors shall be
chosen or elected at the general annual
election as follows: Ajudge of the mu-
nicipal court shall be elected at the gen.
eral annual elel ton in November, 1876,
and two special judges at the general an
nual election in November, 1879" Now
let us see what legislative quackery there
is in this section eleven, when subjected
TO the tests of legal analysis.
The special act Of March l, 1876, that
contains said section eleven, is entitled:
San act to amend certain sections OF the
act entitled, IAN act to reduce the laws
Incorporating the city of st. Paul, in the
county of Ramsey and State of Mime
sofa, and several acts amendatory there
of, and certain other acts re.
ating to said city, into one act, and
to amend the same Approved
March 5, 1874, and to amend an. act rela-
tive to said city approved March 4, 1875"
1t will be observed that this title an
nounces the object of the act to be the
nerdment of certain sections of two GER
tain acts, approved, respectively, March
| 5, 1874, and March 4, 1875, both of which
are relative to the clty,of ST. Paul. But
as no section of the act of March 4, 1875,
so much of the title as relates to that
may be regarded as surplussage. The
title of the act, therefore, may be consid-
cred as embracing but the single subject
of amendment of certain sections of the
act of March 5, 1874. OF the thirteen
sections of the act, sections /, 2, 3, 4, 6
and are strictly amendatory of certain
de ;isnaled sections of said act Of March
), 1874; all the rest of the sections, in
Guiding section IL, are not stated to be,
and in fact are not, amendatory of any see
lions Of any law, but are entirely new and
independently pGOVlSlOuS respecting SuU-
jects different from and incompatible
with the subject of the title.
Az, for instance, one section pro-
vides for the pay, ETC., OF the
police force; another for arbitration of
claims against the city, and still another
for sewer under certain street. Sec
ton eleven is found in company with
these interlopers, and for more reasons
than the rest has no right to be there.
First-As the subject matters of the
section are to legaize the election of the
municipal judges, and also to fix a time
for the next election of their successors,
which are subjects, In the language of the
supreme court, foreign and extraneous
to each other" and to the title of the
act, and do not "blend together in the
common purpose evidently sought to be
accomplished by the law THE State of
Mimi. VS.. Cassidy, % Mimi, X. 324, and
that neither of such subjects is stated in
the title of the act; therefore, said Sec
tim is unconstitutional and void, as
was shown in the article in the GLOBE on
last Monday, to be the case with Mr..
Burr's act, and for the same reasons.
Second-That if it is admitted that
said section is valid for the purpose of
establishing the time for electing the