St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-02-20

| latihg power in the council is correct.
then the issue is with Judge Shaw;
If otherwise, then his position is errone
ous., And this leaves but one question
for discussion, to wit:
What powers and duties are conferred
| and imposed upon the municipal court?
| Whatever they may be, it is clear that
they are of judicial, not of legis
lative, nature. And every lawyer knows
that the court is court of special or
| limited juriSdictiOn-and, like the city
| council in that respect, has no powers
| whatever, except such as are prescribed
| by the statute.
| This is, no doubt, conceded by the
| Judge, for he quotes from section l of
the organic act creating that court: 1T
! shall have exclusive jurisdiction TO hear
! all complaints, and conduct all eXamina-
tons and trials in criminal cases ariS-
ing or heretofore cOgniZable before
| justice of the peace" There is no QueS-
ton concerning the meaning of this
language. 1t is so plain that he who
runs may read. 1t has reference to
what? Clearly to criminal actions over
| which justices of the peace have hereto
| fore had jurisdiction, and nothing else.
VIII Judge Shaw point out any viola
| ton of city ordinance over which JUS
| tees of the peace have. or have hereto
fore had, jurisdiction, except by some
provision of law outside of that which
| is quoted as found in section l41, chap
ter 65, of the statutes? think any law
yer whose opinion would be worthy Of
consideration will agree with me that
the provision in section l, above quoted,
has exclusive reference to crimes under
the statute of the state, and the kind of
crimes, without reference to the proceed
ure towards punishment, is the only
material question bearing upon the sub
Ject of construction i'm considering said
SECTION l of the municipal court act.
Judge Shaw must nave overlooked
the force of this suggestion, otherwise
he would not have discovered to the
public eye the fallacy of his conclusion.
which is so apparent from the special
provisions of section Z of the municipal
code, which provides that: ''lts judge
shall be the chief magistrate of the
city. and shall see that the criminal
laws and ordinances, laws. regulations
| and bylaws of the city are observed
| and executed"
From this it appears that the legisla-
ture recognized a distinction between
criminal laws and ordinances, etc,
and it is waste of time to argue the
position that there is recognized such
distinction in all the courts of this cOun-
lawyer will dispute it. Under the GRIM
inal laws of this state man has right
to trial by jury. Onder charge for
violating city ordinance no such right
is given, but is denied. A man may be
convicted under city ordinance, but he
cannot plead such conviction AS de-
Tense upon prosecution for the same
act under the statute.
But the judge. after quoting the pro-
vision of section l OF the municipal
court act, concludes:
so, then. the municipal court in this
| city is vested with the power. Jurisdic-
ton and duties of justice of the peace
| i'll criminal matters arising within the
city,"
10 man who did not understand the
distinction between criminal matters
| and violations of ordinances this con-
| clusion is all right, and such a one might
| rest upon the statement of the learned
| lurist. But to an informed and inquir-
| ing mind there is something wanting
more than the bare statement of the at
torney of the Law and Order league.
The distinction between violations OF
| ordinances and criminal laws being rec
| 0gnlZed, 1t IS easy to recognize that pro-
visions of law created to enforce the
latter do not necessarily apply to the
former. Criminal laws apply all over
the state; city ordinances apply within
the municipality where enacted. And
although the jurisdiction of the Justices
| courts heretofore existing within the
| city of Minneapolis has been conferred
on the municipal court, that court is re-
| CURED to, and does, recognize the dis
tlnction between statutory crimes and
violations of ordinances in its method
OF hearing causes. Violations of Ordi-
1 names are heard q n rIy q N
In violations of the state laws the ac-
cused is given jury if he demands it.
1t seems unnecessary to pursue the ar
| gument to establish this distinction.
| When it is established. then the pro-
vision of section l of the municipal
court act is seen to have no application.
II there were any doubt that such dis
tinction exists, the supreme court of
this state has determined the point i'm
the cases OF the State VS.. Lee. 90 Mimi,
AS, and in the City of Mankato VS.. Ar
mold, SO Mimi, 81, in both of which it is
! held that prosecutions for violating Or
dinances are pot criminal prosecutions.
None of the other laws cited and
| quoted by Judge shaw, directly or by
| implication. make any reference to the
subject of complaints against violations
| of city ordinances.
The duty of issuing process is not i'm
controversy. All processes must origin
ate in some court. Such thing can
not exist without the stamp of judicial
power. But the process is but the
power of the court set in motion; every
thing that precedeS it is only quasi
| judicial at most, If not entirely minis
| terial.
But 1T is wholly immaterial who may
issue the process, the question being
whether the city council may confine
the duty to the police of making COM
plants, and thus indirectly Obstruct
private citizens from setting the ma
chinery of the law into motion. If the
method of procedure pointed out by
the law making power in no way inter.
rupts the court in the performance of
its duty as a judicial branch of the gov
eminent, as its duties are prescribed by
low, then there Is no repugnancy, and
the objection to this ordinance fails of
reason. Section 5, chapter 4, City Char
ter, reads: 1.-The city council has full
power and authority to make, ordain.
publish, enforce, order, amend OF repeal
all such ordinances for the government
and good order of the city; for the sup
preston Of vice and intemperance ~
as it shall deem eXpedient; and in and
by the same to declare and impose pen
altles and punshmentS and enforce the
same"
Can any doubt be entertained that the
manner of institutlng actions to enforce
these ordinances and to bring violators
thereof to punishment is plainly dele
gated to the council by the language of
the charter?
Can any one claim, when it appears
that the method of instituting these
proceedings in no way appears to be re-
pugnant to any existing law OF the
state, that the ordinance is illegal?
The legislature having the right to
limit prosecutions for offenses, and hay
ing delegated that right to Minneapolis,
the power of the council to exercise it is
as broad as the power of the legislature.
The power of the municipal court being
purely judicial, and not creative, it is
not easy to comprehend how the func-
tons of that tribunal could in any way
be impaired. or how the act in question
nQr ii