The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1883-04-27

the iilegaiity OF charging license tee
of $3.50, Mr.. Wiswcll stated that AZ an
officer of the city, he felt bound to give
his judgment in this matter, but he
should do SO without any wish to preju.
dice the minds OF the cOuncilmen either
one way or the other. lie should simp-
ly give the legal construction of our
ordinance as he interpreted it.
The following is Il condensation of
| Mr.. Wiswell's remarks
| II seems to me that the question turns up
ON the construction Of Subdivision /, Of
Section of Chapter Of the City Charter
The Subdivision referred To provides IN SUBJ
stance as follows: The Common Council shall
have the right to license all persons dealing
in spirituOus, vinous or fcrmented liquors;
Preceded, That all license for so dealing in
| spirituous, vinOus or fermented liquors shall
not be less than $25 year, and no license
shall be granted for less than one year, and
all licenses shall commence and terminate on
the first day Of May OF each year; Ind, pro-
cided further, such Common Council shall have
the exclusive right to license all billiard TIA
bles and saloons wherein spirituots, vinolis
or fernentcd liquors are sold within said city.
Does the statute just quoted place any limit
upon the amount which the Council may fix
for license, except that II shall not be less
than SIS! The General Statute provides that
the sum fixed by County Commissioners for
license issued by them shall not be less than
Ss5 nor greater than 500. II must be COLI
cedcd that ordinances must generally he In
harmony with the general laws of the State'
as well as with the provisions Of the Charter
But II il well established that the "Chartcr
may expressly, or by necessary implication,
exclude the general laws of the State on any
particular subject, and allow the corporation
to pass local laws ut discretion, which may
differ from the rule In force clscw here
Cooiey'S court, Lin. 1888.
This is illustrated by the case of the State
of Minnesota vs.. Wheeler, a case arising un-
der the charter of Winnebego City, which
charter authorizes the City Council to grant
licenses to all vending or dealing In spiritu-
GUS, vinOus or fermcnted liquors; and fur
Their: 1.-THE sale of intoxicating, spirituous,
vinous, malt or fermented liquors, within
the limits Of said village, is hereby declared to
be under the exclusive control Of the Common
that the whole matter was under the control
of the Common Council, and was wholly
taken from the effect OF the General Statute
So in the case OF Goddard, SC, C6 Peck 5Os),
case arising under municipal charter In
regard to the removal Of snow. 1t was OBJ
jected that the regulation was repugnant to
the General Statute. The court say 'that
the answer that the special acts took the
whole proceeding from the operation of the
general law, was sufficient. The statute is
not in force. To the same effect see Rogers
VS.. Jones, LIST Wend., l6i; HARRINGTON VS. The
Trustees, &c. Wend., 55l. See, also, Dillon OH
Municipal Corporation, 3U7
Tho whole question then would seem to be,
does the provision Of the Charter of Manka-
torestrct the Council. to the sum mentioned In
the General Statutes, or to any sum, except
that II shall not be less than 1852 To me II
appears not, especially as several exceptions
and conditions mentioned; the presumption
is that no others were intended to be made, |
and that, therefore, the Common Council |
have right to fix the license ut any reasenn.
bic sum, provided thrust not be ssthan $25. |
In constituting statutes. the rule is to read
statutes according to the most natural and
obvious import of tae language, without re- |
sorting to subtle and forced construction for |
the purpose of either limiting or extending |
their operation. I think. clearly the charter |
tax cs the maximum to be charged for license |
out of the General Statutes, and leaves It iu |
the power Of the Council to TX.
Mr.. Pau, at the conclusion of Mr.
Wiswell's remarks, asked the privilege
of few further remarks, which was
granted. He said the case Of Whine.
bago City was not a parallel with that
of Mankato, and the Massachusetts State
law is entirely different from ours, mas
much as it delegated powers to cities
which our law does not recognize.
In order to ascertain the sentiment of
the Council upon the matter of chang
ing the license, Alderman Carney moved
that the committee on ordinance he in
structed to amend Section 2 of Ordi-
nance No. 8, by striking out the words
tone hundred and fifty dollars" and in.
serting IN lieu thereof the words zone
hundred dollars" A vote was taken on
the proposition and resulted in tie
six for and six against. The mayor de
clarcd the motion lost.
This ended, at least for the present,
the license question, and the Council
adjourned.