St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-29
THE LAW rs NOT VALID.
By a Decision Of the Supreme Court the
Tax Title Law is Unoon-
stitutional.
A Teohnioality in Legislation That vii
Have Important and Widespread
Results.
An Opinion That the Tax Title Bus.
mess is Settled Until the Legisla-
ture Meets.
thousands of Titles That VIII No,
Neutrality-suspicious. Discussed by
the Court.
Unconstitutional,

Unconstitutional. ~
A decision by the supreme court was
Med yesterday afternoon which will affect
Tar greater amount of property than the
decision in the famous Chauncey- Wass
case. In this decision the act of 1881
repeating the law of 1877 requiring
ninety days notice of the expiration of the
time OF redemption is declared unconstitu-
tlonaL AS will be seen by the syllabus
given elsewhere the decision is on purely
technical grounds. The constitution of the
state requires that not more than one enact
ment shall be contained in a legislative
Dill and that the purport Of the act shall be
given in the title. The section of the laws
OF 1881 in question declares that it is
amendatory to the general laws of 1877 and
also repeats section 81, chapter d, but does
not declare this object in its
title. The whole argument in the
present case was made on that point. On
the argument of the case about month
| ago, Judge How of the Omaha road and
Hon. Gordon E. Cole assisted, asking to be
| heard as representing interests involved in
the decision. Attorneys interviewed last
evening declined to express definite opinions
on the decision and its extent, but some said
that it would upset the whole tax title
business and render invalid thousands of
tax titles in the state. Judge j. D. Howe
said last evening: s'This decision will
destroy very large number of tax titles.
Ihere is, however, a class of tax titles which
nave arisen what are called for
felted lands-that is lands which
were bid in by the state and
held by the state two years, thereafter sold
The language Of the act of 1877, which is
now revived. is in substance that all ''per-
SONS" holding tax certificates shall cause
ninety days notice to be given of the ex-
piration of the time of redemption. Under
the present tax law no certificate
is issued to the state when it
bids in property, and therefore
! holders of tax titles claim that this notice
need not be given in the case Of forfeited
lands, their argument being that the state
is not person holding certificate of tax
sale. and that they have purchased of the
state lands that were absolutely forfeited
and the property of the stateo An
other gentleman said the decision would
put quietus on all tax title operations un-
I'll the legislature shall meet and go over
the whole subject. In view of the wide
spread interests which will be taken in this
decision and the recent stirring up that the
taX-ttle business has had, the text of the
~ASSAoASAA
THE DECISION.
State Of Minnesota ex. rel. Henry M. Rice.
relator and appellant, VS.. James A. Smith as
auditor OF the county of St. Louis, respond
emit Opinion: This appeal is to test the con-
stitutionality Of chapter 10, Of the general
laws OF 1881, so far as respects section g.
which in terms declares the repeal of section
81, OF chapter 6, of the general law of 1877
requiring the service of a notice of the ex-
of hn Co.
tax sales. The appellant claims that this re-
pealing section is Intellectual because the sub
Ject OF it Is not expressed in the title of the
act in compliance with the constitutional re-
quirement that mo law should embrace more
than one subject which shall be expressed in
its title. Constitution, article 4, section 81.
In CASTOR VS.. Merriam, SO Mimi. 271, it was
taken for granted without consideration
that this was valid legislative enact
ment no question OF this kind having been
involved in that case. The title of this act
is IAN act to amend chapter Of the general
laws of 1873, to provide for the assessment
and collection of taxes, being chapter IL,
General Statutes of 1873" As is indicated
by this title. the act of 1878, there referred to,
Is entitled IAN act to provide for the assess
ment and collection of taxes The latter
part of the title Of the law in question "beina
chapter ii. General Statutes of 1S7s,' does
not enlarge the scope Of the preceding part
Of the title SO as to affect the determination of
the matter in controversy, and may be disre-
garded for the purposes of this case. These
words refer to Young's compilation Of stat
utes, made in that year, which was never
adopted or enacted as a law or revision Of the
laws, although it was by chapter 67,laws 1879,
made competent evidence of the several acts
and resolutions therein contained in all
courts Of this state" That part of the title
referring to this compilation implies the
identity of the act to the amended (chapter l,
orfc I Of that D;rn
ton, but in fact they are not the same.
Among the statutes not enacted in 1878, but
which are embraced in chapter IL Of the COM
pllatfon are acts passed in 1887, 1868, 1871,
1878, 1876 and 1877. Among these and desig-
mated as section 121 is section 81 of chapter
6 Of the laws Of 1877. The subject of the act
1881, as expressed in it's title, can only be
construed as being ITO amend chapter l of
the general laws of 1872 and not to amend
also such other laws as may be embraced in
chapter IL of the compilation referred to-
The evident purpose and effect of the latter
wherein the compilation of 1878,
the act to be amended, and
which is specifically designated, might be
found. The question there is reduced to
this: Does the title, IAN act to amend chap
ter Of the general laws Of 1878 (which is en-.
titled an act] to provide for the assessment
and collection of taxes, " express the subject
of the enactment, so far as relates to the OK.
press repeal of section 81 of the act of 1877.
In CASTOR VS.. Merriam, supra, it became
necessary for us to determine the relation Of
that part of the act of 1877 in question Use e
was there considered that the later act Of
1873
DID NOT REPEAL
by implication section 81 of the act Of 1877;
that both acts co-existed as separate and in
dependent enactments, the later act being
qualified in its operation by the former. The
act of 1878 did not include that Of 1877,
nor did 1t contain any provision respecting
the giving of notice of the expiration of the
time of the expiration of the time for re-
demption. The whole provision of the
statute upon that particular subject when
the amendatory act of 1881 was passed was
embodied in the act of 1877. Bearing this in
mind, let us consider also the nature of the
amendatory act. The legislation affected by
that act is contained in twenty-five sections
Twenty Of these consist of amendments in
the proper and usual sense of the word. of
various specified sections of the law of 1878.
The twenty-first section added to the act n
new provision relating to the rcfunding of
taxes and of the purchase price paid at tax
sales under certain circumstances. The only
remaining section is that under considera-
ton, which simply declares the repeal
of section 81 OF the act of 1877.
Neither in the provisions of the law of 1878,
the amendatory provisions of the act of 1881,
was there anything inconsistent with the law
of 1877, requiring notice to be served in the
manner the prescribed of the expiration of
the period for redemption. The act Of 1877
remained in force unaffected by any legisla1
ton, unless by this declared repeal. The
legislative purpose in enacting this section,
the object to be aecomplished,is Enthusiastically
and conclusively expressed upon its face.
1t is this, and only this: The repeal of the
specified law of 1877. The proper subject of
such I'm enactment is the repeni of the law,
and not the amendment of the distinct act of
1878, although both statutes related to the
same general subject of tax proceedings, and
were to be construed as parts of the law in
in pari materia. The subject of the act ex-
pressed Ia its title. to amend the specified act
of 1878, cannot but be at once recognized as
q misnomer as applied 10 this repeating seq
ton. To test this let us bring the title and
the enactment in question closely together by
disreearding the prior and properly amenda-
tory sections: or let as suppose that this act,
entitled as it is, had consisted only of this one
fhn