St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-06

of committee of seven. The legislature is
presumed to have had knowledge of the old
act, and made the change from six to seven
"a radical change. And making the further
change and provision under said section 6
of 1889, that "said committee shall have en-
tire charge of said building. and shall have
power to appoint such Janitor, custodian.
and other employees as they shall deem neces-
sary for the proper care and management of
said building, and at such compensation as
said committee shall deterInine.n
Under section of the old act of 1881,
there was no such power vested in the joint
committee of six to appoint Janltor, Gus
todian or other employees, as they might
deem necessary for the proper care and man
agement of said building, nor to fix their
compensation. Here, then, are TWO radical
changes clearly apparent in the act OF the
legislature approved April ID, 1889.
Second-Section of the act Of 1889
enacts that when said building is completed,
meaning that the court house hadnot then
been completed, but whenever 1t was, thence
forward it should be in charge OF joint
committee of seven, and giving and yestlng
powers of appointment when said building
was completed; that the old act di not and
giving the president of the common council
and The chairman of the board OF county
commissioners certain powers and privl-
leges and vesting i'll said committee of seven
certain rights which the act of 1881 did not;
clearly vesting in such new committee all
powers and privileges over the new court
house.
Third-It is conceded that the new court
court house was completed prior to the ap-
polntment of the president OF the common
council, June A. A. ID. 1889; that no other
committee had ever been appointed by any
president of the common council when "
or after the completion of the court house.
Is not, then, the appointment by the presi-
dent of the common council of June 3, 1889.
a valid appointment? Does not the act of
1889 supersede and wholly repeal in its in.
tendment and scope section of the act OF
1882
Does the old committee claim to be superior
to the legislature of the state of Minnesota,
from whom they derive whatever powers
they possessed? They had no power to ap-
point custodian under the old law. or any
other. employe. Where do they get their
power from?
The legislature has the power to abolish an
Office created by it, diminish, or en- large its
functions, and is not the latest act of the SOW
ereign power of the state, when contradictory
of al ancecendent act, to be taken as the law
OF the land?
The conclusion is clear to my mind that
section of the act of 1889 is conclusive
and controlling, that it is law then, when
the appointment was made by the president
of the common council, June, 6, 1889, OF the
committee it was avalid appointment, SUI
purseded all former appointments, and that
they are to be properly recognized as three OF
the committee OF seven in charge of the
court house. and the power to appoint a jan
itor, custodian and other employees, as they
shall deem necessary for the proper care and
management of SAID building, as such COM
mittee shall determine.
The chairman of the board of county COM
missioners not having appointed, as yet, any
new committee under the act of April Ii,
1889, no opinion is given relative to the
status OF any former appolntees.