Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-10-24

grant such chartered privileges to them as
bodies polite without surrendering any of
the Jurisdiction of the state
over offenses against it. State
VS.. Olson. 26 Mimi, p. 515.
1t is essential to good government and
the public welfare that the authority of the
state and municipality should thus stand
together. And we do not think the const;-
tutional powers of the government ale SO
circumscribed as not to permit this, or
that the common law principle as to Sec
ond jeopardy, incorporated in our consti-
tuition, was ever intended to apply in such
cases. Greenwood VS.. State, Jere. Baxter,
574.5.
The charter of the city of St. Paul con-
fers no authority on the city council to en-
act bylaws for the punishment of ofenses
under the general laws of the state, but for
municipal purposes only. The jurisdic-
ton originally given to the city justice
has been conferred on the municipal court,
and as will appear by section 16 of chapter
3 of the charter Especial laws of 1874, page
27) he was given 'cognizance and exclusive
jurisdiction of all suits, prosecutions or
proceedings for the recovery
of any fines, forfeiture or penalty unde.'
any bylaw, ordinances or regulation and
in all cases of offenses committed
against: the same"
Alllsuch ordinances were also directed to
be conducted in the name of the city. These
provisions were in existence when the
decision in the case of the state VS.. Charles
was made. Jurisdiction of the state
over the ohense in this case was not ex-
cluded by the above or any other provisions
of the charter. The city court is given ex-
elusive jurisdiction of offenses against by
laws. This leaves the Jurisdiction of the
state courts unimpaired as to offenses
against the laws. The offense triable in
in each court is necessarily distinct. The
charter excludes the idea of concurrent
jurisdiction of one and the same ofense.
If it were in fact the same offense then
there would be no escape from the conclu-
sion arrived at by justice Berry in the state
VS.. Olsen, that the ordinance was void be-
cause an offense like the one in question,
indictable at common law and under the.
statutes could not be tried under the pro-
cedure provided for in the police court.
1t is clear enough, however, that
the legislature adopting the common
understanding and prevalent construction
intended to distinguish the two classes
of offenders. And as we have seen offenses
70 be the same, must be identical in law as
well as III fact.
in the grant of powers to the city coun-
Gil they are authorized to make and enforce
bylaws for ''the government and good Or
der OF tee CITY: for TIC suppression of vice
and intenrerance and the prevention OF
crime as they should deem expedient."
And they are further empowered to de-
clare and impose penalties and punish
ments for the violation of any ordinance
made by them. sand for these purposes
they shall have authority Third,
To prevent any riots, noise, disturbance
and disorderly assemblages in said city
and to provide for the arrest and punish
ment of any person guilty of the same, to
suppress disorderly houses and houses Of
ill-fame and to provide for the arrest and
punishment of the keepers thereof
Fifth, Fines, penalties and punishments
by the common council for the breach of
any ordinance, bylaw or regulation of said
city may extend to a fine not exceeding
800 and imprisonment in the city prison
and county Jail not exceeding thirty days."
Offenders also may be required to give Sc
curity for their good behavior.
The ordinance in question is
enacted strictly in pursuance of
thee provisions. It is directed
against the keepers of disorderly places, in
Guiding houses of ill-fame, as well as all
persons, male or female, who resort to such
disorderly houses or houses Of ill-fame, and
every person shall, on conviction thereof
before the city justice, be punished by q
fine not less than five nor more than ono
hundred dollars, and imprisonment not ex-
ceeding thirty days, or either, at the dis
erection of the justice, and may be held to
bail for good behavior, provided proof of
general reputation of ill-fame and disor-
derby conduct shall be sufficient evidence
that such house is house of ill-fame or
place of disorderly conduct, within the
meaning of this ordinance. It is also
made the duty of the police to report all
infractions of the ordinance.
We have been particular to set forth the
material portions Of the charter and ordi-
nance, in order that it might appear how
carefully and judiciously they were formed
to avoid any interference with the juris-
diction of the state over crime. Nothing
could be clearer than that the limited pun
ishment provided has reference solely to
the enforcement of the authority given by
the charter to the council, to make "rules
and bylaws for the good order of the city
oA0 Vu0 pup OooAOA Va SACo duu 1uI6m poI.
ance," in section three of chapter four,
above quoted land to which its authority
is limited) as police regulations required
for the exigencies and purposes of the mu :
nicipal government.
The classification in the ordinance of keep
ers of houses of ill-fame with those of other
diserderly houses and with those who re-
sort thereto, all alike subject to the same
penalties; the procedure including the pro-
visions for security for future good be-
haviour; the summary notice of the trial
and conviction clearly mark and distinguish
the offense against the ordinance from the
public ofense against the general law.
A similar characteristic may also be
noted in that this ordinance is satisfied
with less degree or quantity of evidence
than is required on the trial of the offense
under the general law (which must be be-
yond reasonable doubt Under it "proof
of general reputation of ill-fame, and dis
orderly conduct shall be not merely COM
potent but sufficient evidence that such
house is house of ill-fame or place of dis
orderly conduct within the meaning of this
ordinance"
Acts of violence constituting felonies
under the general law, but classed as dis