St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-05-16
BOARD OF HEALTH.
How Their Organization was Af-
fected by the Recent Legislature.


fected by the Recent Legislature.
The recent legislature passed an act re-
lating to boards of health changing very
materially the law in regard to boards of
health of cities, towns and villages. The
ity attorneys of st. Paul and Minneapolis
have advised their councils that this change
does not apply to the boards of health of
those places. The act c0ntemplates a re-
organization Of these boards by the election
of their members by the council on the first
Monday in April, and further specifies that
they shall consist of not less than three
members, one to be elected for three years,
one for two and one for one; member to
be elected elected annually thereafter.
The state board left the matter to the ar
bitration of the attorney general, asking
him question to
THE FOLLOWING EFFECT:
''This board is informed that the city at
torneys of Minneapolis and st. Paul have
advised that the law relating to boards of
health, approved March Z, 1885, does not
apply to their city boards of health, and,
therefore, there is no necessity for their Or
ganizing under this law, They claim that
the clause, anything in the charter of any
village, borough OF city to the contrary
Notwithstanding, does not effect them
This board respectfully ask your opinion
on that subject"
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS ANSWER.
The act referred to provides that all cities
shall have board of health, to be chosen,
and to consist of the number hereafter pro-
vided, anything in the charter of any such
city to the contrary Notwithstanding Query
Does this repeal any plovis-
ions to be found in the charters of these
cities inconsistent with this enactment. 1t
is true that repeats by implication are not
favored. 1t is also true that a general law
is not to be construed as repeating special
law unless the intent so to do is manifest,
nevertheless the question whether general
law repeats any Of the provisions of a
special charter is a question of legislative
intention.
The opinion here quotes several authOri-
ties and then continues:
Applying the legal principles announced
III the cases cited above, it seems to me to
be too clear for argument that the effect of
the act OF 1885 referred to was to repeal all
provisions OF all city charters inconsistent
with the terms of that act. 1t expressly
provides that the provisions of that act
shall obtain (so far as applicable) to any,
thing III any character of any such city
charter to the contrary Notwithstanding.
Here is plain, unmistakable expression of
legislative intent to establish for the future
new and uniform system of boards of
health all over the state; and such intent
being thus manifest and apparent it must
prevail. If it is claimed that the charters
OF these cities provides that no law of this
state controyening the provisions of such
charters shall be construed as repeating.
amending, OF modifying the same unless
such purpose be
EXPRESSLY SET FORTH
in such law; then | would say in the land
guage OF our own supreme court in Prince
VS. City OF st. Paul-supra, $50 far as this
is an attempt upon the part of the legisla-
ture, by which this provision was enacted
toimpose restraint upon the power of a
future Legislature to enact laws mo question
of invested rights arising) it is of course
nugatory. and, notwithstanding the re-
sfraiHt thus attempted it would be entirely
competent for such future legislature to pass