St. Paul daily globe., 1894-07-15
THE OPINI0NIN FULL.

State of Minnesota, ex. rel, II. W. Childs.
Attorney General. Relator. Oscar E. Hol-
man and William Banhoizer Respondents.
Demurrer Us aimed. MITCHEl L, j.
Buck. j., aGsent, sick, took no part
In their answer TO the information
fled to test respondents title to the Of
fee of aSSemblymen of the city of st.
Paul, two defenSeS are InterpoSed. TO
the first defense the state demurred,
and the issue raised by this demurrer is
the one now submitted to the court. Its
determination depends upon the con-
struction and constitutionality of the
provision relating 10 the residence of
asSemblymen contained in the city
charter, 5. L. 1891. ch. g. sec. l.
First-This provision, so far as here
material. is as follows:
''Said assembly shall be composed of
nine (9) members. The members of the
assembly shall be elected at large from
the body of electors of said city, and
four (i) of them shall reside east of Wa
basha and Rice streets and north of the
Mississippi river, and four a. shall re-
side west of Wahasha and Rice streets
and north of the Mississippi river, and
one o. shall reside in the Sixth (6thl
ward of said city.
AT the general municipal election of
said city in eighteen hundred and
ninety-two QS92J there shall be elected
at large. from the electors Ct SAID city,
and at each general municipal election.
held each TWO (2) successive years there
after, theIe shall be elected at large,
from the electors of said city, nine (9)
aSsen biymen, who shall reside in such
portions of said city as hereinbefore
provided"
The state contends that this has no
reference TO the eligibility of candidates
for the Office, but is merely directory as
TO where the aSSemblyWen shall reside
after they are elected. The language
is not susceptible of any such construc-
tion. 1t clearly means that four of the
aSSemblymen shall be elected from the
electors residing i'll Ole part of the city.
four from those residing in another
part, and one from those residing in a
third part. This construction is also
the only one that is consistent with the
manifest object of the provision Ito
secure local representation to the diff
ferent parts of the city,, or that would
worK in practice. Suppose the nine
candidates receiving the highest num-
Der Of votes all resided in one of these
districts. which tive of the nine would
be required to change their residences?
Aud to which of the remaining districts
should each of the five remove? And if
they all refused to change their resi-
lates to eligibility or qualification for
election.
Second-The provision OF the constI-
tuition to which the state claims this pro-
vision of the charter is obnoxious is
article {, section Z, which reads as fol-
lows:
Every person, who by the provision
OF this article shall be entitled to vote
al any election. shall be, eligible to any
Office which now is, or hereafter shall
be, elective by the people in the district
wherein he shall have resided thirty
days previous to such election. except as
otherwise provided in this constitution,
or the constitution and laws of the
United States"
The contention of the respondents is
that this applies only 10 constitutional
and not to municipal offices.
1t must either apply to all elective
offices, both constitutional and statu-
tory, or else only to constitutional Of
fees. There is no warrant for adopting
middle ground and drawing the line
at municipal ii. e. city or village) offices.
The language of this constitutional pro-
vision will not admit of the limitation
sought to be attached to it. By its ex-
press terms 1t applies to ANY office
which now is, or hereafter shall be,
elective by the people" The words cor
hereafter shall be'' must OF necessity re-
refer to statutory Offices, for the constitu-
ton presently determined what consti-
tutional offices should be elective Sec
tion l of the same article, fixing the
qualification of voters. aud section g.
providing that elections shall be by
ballot, also indicate that wherever in
this article, elective offices and elections
for elective Offices are mentioned refer
ence is had To statutory as well as con-
stitutional Offices. This court,has always
construed section as being applicable to
statutory offices. State VS.. Clougb, %
Mimi, II; see also Brisbn VS.. Cleary,
2G i'd, 10Y; Harrington VS.. Town of
Plainyiew, 81 id., 224: State VS.. Fitz-
gerald, 81 i'd, 81. Hence whenever any
public office OF any kind is made elee-
tive section Z, article Z, of the constitu-
tlon becomes eX proprio vigoro applica-
Bile and operative. and fixes the oualifi-
cations for eligibility. This is a denial
OF power to the legislature to impose
any greater restrictions, or to add any
other qualifications for eligibility to
those prescribed by the constitution.
Thus far we do not understand that
there is any difference of opinion In
this court.
Third - The remaining question is