St. Paul daily globe., 1888-05-01
The Supreme Court Settles a
Nice Point in
Law.
Legislation in the Matter of
w. H. Dyke is Con-
Stitutional.
Other Decisions Handed Down
by the Highest Tribunal
in the State.
Work for the Grand Jury.
Opening of the May
Term.

The supreme court yesterday handed
down decision in the Iong-contested
case of w. II. Dyke VS.. The State of
Minnesota, for two alleged claims of fif-
teen years standing. The decision and
opinion following explain the case:
w. III. Dyke, respondent, VS.. The State
of Minnesota, appellant.
Syllabus-Chapter 15S, General Laws
1887, entitled San act providing for the
judicial determination and adjustment
of two alleged claims of w. Ii. Dyke" is
not i'll violation of the constitutional
amendment of 1881 prohibiting the leg
lslature from enacting any special or
private law granting any spe-
cial OF exclusive privilege. immunity or
franchise whatever. Judgment af-
firmed. MITCHELL, J.
The opinion says:
The only question in this case is
whether chapter 15S, General Laws
1887, is in violation of the constitutional
amendment of 1881 which prohibits the
private laws, etc. The contention of
the state is that the act in question
grants the plaintiff special privilege
because it allows him to appeal to the
district court from the decision of a
commission established by chapter 1,
General Laws. 1881, extra session, dis
allowing his claims, the same rights not
being given to others whose claims were
disallowed by that commission. The
title of the act, as well as the peculiar
form i'll which it is cast, may, at first
sight, seem to give an appearance of
plauslbllity to this position. The act
was evidently drawn so as to win legis-
lative favor. But when stripped of all
oil of fha
act Of substance is an appropriation of
money out of the state treasury to pay
the claims of the plaintiff on condi-
ton that he establish certain facts
to the satisfaction Of the district court.
'The legislature, instead of investigating
the facts themselves and then apprOpri-
atlng the money, absolutely referred the
investigation to the district court and
appropriated the money to pay the
claims, conditional upon the courts find
ing that they were of the character and
description provided for in section of
act OF 1881. Had the legislature adopted
the first course, it seems to us that no
one would have questioned the cOnSti-
tutionality of the act, but there is no
difference in principle between that case
and this. The appropriation of money
to pay these claims, whether condition
ally or Internationally. and whether as
a gift OF i'll the settlement of an obliga-
ton, moral or legal. was not the grant
of privilege" within the meaning of
the constitution. The language of the
constitution was never intended to apply
to such case. If it did the legislature
could never appropriate money to pay a
particular claim without passing a gen
eral law paying every other claim. 1t
may have been impolitic by the passage
of this act to open the door for the re-
vival of all the old claims of this kind
which were disallowed by the commits
sion under the act of 1881. But that was
a matter exclusively for the considera-
ton of the legislature. We are satisfied
that this act is not in conflict with the
constitution"