Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1886-03-26

said legislative session is herewith re-
ferred to and made q part Of these
findings. and that the financial state
nent therein referred to is the one In
dispute in this action. That on the
10th day of November, 1885, said
plaintiff duly demanded Of the de-
PENDANT that payment;be made for said
publication as provided for in said act,
which defendant, then and there res
fused.
AS u conclusion of law said court
finds, that the. plaintiff is entitled to
judgment against said defendent for
the sum of $529.25 with interest since.
the 10 day Of November, 1885, besides
the costs and disburse ments of this
action. 5,s&
Let judgment be SO entered. FIJI:
BY the court: -, u
L. ". COLLINS, Judge.
MEMORANDUM:
By the stipulation in this action it
will be seen that no question whatever
is raised except the constitutionality
of the Act known as Chap. 228, special
laws of 1885. The method Of proce-
dure adopted by plaintiff, or the facts;
are not in dispute nor questioned. 1t
is well said in Sanborn vs.. Commissions
ers, 9th MINI. q, 25S, that the question
"whether law is void for its repug-
nancy to the constitution is at all times
one OF much efficacy, which ought
seldom, if ever, be decided in the
affirmative in doubtful case" Judge
Cooley has also said in his work on
constitutional limitations that reson-
able doubt of the constitutionality Of
an Act must be solved in favor Of the
legislature.
lam not convinced that said act is
incompatible with any part of the fun
damental law of the state, in fact, I
am quite clear that the legislature had
the right to require Morrison county
to pay for the publication, even if the
preamble was not justified by the facts
as heretofore found by me in former
action between these parties. The
power of the legislature as controlled
by that part of the constitution which
provides that ''all taxes to be raised in
this state shall be as nearly equal as
may be-" was discussed somewhat in
the case referred to in the 9th Mimi,
unnecessarily. it would seem to it's dis
position.
An attempt had been made by the
legislature to confer on the county
commissioners the power ''to audit,
adjust and fix the claim" of ones San.
born against a school district and then
levy Il tax Oh said district for the
amount 50 audited. It was held that
the attenp WAS to confer judicial pow.
er on the commissioners and therefore
unconstitutional, and also that as the
establishment OF claim against the
district was prerequisite to the tax
levy, no such tax could he imposed
The legislative power has also been
considered in State VS.. McFadden, Esd
Mimi, 49,. And it will be conceded
THAT unless Chap. 22S conflicts, express
~ or by implication, with that part Of
the constitution above quoted, it mus,
be upheld. think it does not. We
may assume, although there is nothing
in this case to indicate it, that the pub.
LEGATION was in some way irregular, bu,
Sec. ll3, Chap. 8, &. S., 1878, makes il
the duty of every board of commits
sioners in the state to make and pub
lisia annually such statement and this
section was probably complied with ir
every county, unless we except Morri
son. In that county it would seen
that the commissioners wholly neglec
ted this duty, unless we treat the pub
LEGATION in question. as such act. W.
must also assume that the commission
ers in their levy for county purposes
contemplated this very expense anC
provided for it by taxation as did al
other counties in the state, and thai
the money 50 COLLECTED is now in it,
treasury. All counties had properl,
! incarred and liquidated this liability
before the passage of the special act
and / SEE no injustice, no inequality o.
taxation in compelling Murrison coun
~ by subsequent legislation to pay fol
it, Il financial statement, an obligation
previously PLACED upon it, in common
with other like subdivisions of the
state. I think the case at bar comes
clearly within the rule laid down or
page 25s; Cooloy's constitutional liIni
tations, 9Th edition, and fortified By
the cases cited in note one the reto
which is, '"That the legislature ha.
undouhted power to compel the mu
Moi pal bodies to perform their func
tons as local governments under their
charters, and TO recognized, meet, snt
discharge the duties and obligation.
properly resting upon them as such
whsthet they be legal, or merely equi
table or moral and for this purpose i