St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-21
THEY WILL REMAIN
Ehrmanutraut and Hare Lee
gally Belong to the Court
House Commission,
ACCORDING TO JUDGE EGAN
Who Discharges the Writ Of
Quo Warpanto on It's
Merits.
PRENDERGAST INDICATED
For Retaining the Names Of
Banholzer and Holman
on the Roll.
PRENDERGAsT INDICATED

commission on the ground that they
had not been legally appointed.
Judge Egan decides that the present
incumbents were legally appointed,
| and that the other two are not enti-
| tied to seats on the commission. The
decision vindicates the action of
City Clerk Prendergast in retaining
the names of Banholzer and Hol-
man on the roll as assemblymen
| during the muddle in that body last
year until the supreme court decid-
ed that they were not entitled to
seats therein. After reviewing the
findings of fact, Judge Egan sets
forth his conclusions of law:
"First-That the respondents, Joseph
Ehrmanntraut Jr., and Robert n.
Hare, and each of them, are duly ap-
pointed, qualified and acting members
of said joint court house and city hall
committee, and that each of them is
entitled to hold and occupy said office
and to enjoy the same until the expira-
ton of their said terms of office, on
June %, 1895
Second-That said E. H. Milham
and Alexander Lindahl
ARE NOT MEMBERS.
nor is either of them a member of said
joint court house and city hall COM
mittee, or in any manner entitled to
hold or occupy said office.
''Third-That the information and
writ Of quo warranto herein be dis
missed and discharged on the merits
The following interesting memoran-
dunn is attached to the decision:
Section 3, subchapter 3, chapter l,
Special Laws Minnesota, 1874 provides:
AT the first meeting of the common
council in each year they shall pro-
coed to elect, by ballot, from their
number, president and vice presf-
dent The president shall preside over
the meetings of the common council"
AT this time. and down to 1891, the
common council consisted of but
single body, and for several years
prior to 1891 was made up Of one alder
man from each ward and five alder
men at large.
by chapter 6, Special Laws of Mime
sofa, 1881, amending the law of 1874,
the common council was made to con-
slst of two bodies. Section l, of the
law of 1891, provides that on and after
the 18th day Of May, 1891, the legislat
i've authority of the city of st. PauI
Shall consist of an assembly and board
OF aldermen, which shall meet seDa;-
ately, save as herein provided, said
two bodies shall be known as the COM
mon council Of the city of ST. Paul."
while under this law the common
council is composed of two bodies re-
CURED in certain instances to meet and
act separately, yet
THE COMMON COUNCIL
and the legislative authority of the
city remain and continue as an entity,
the same as under the law of 1874.
Neither the board of aldermen nor the
assembly constitutes the common
councll, but the. two together form a
third body, which is the common
council.
There being no expressed repcal;ng
clause IN the law of 1891, consequently
1t repeats only so much of the IRE
Vlously existing law as is inconsistent
and cannot be construed in harr.,nv
with 1t.
Section 1, of the law of 1891, further
provides that leach body shall elect its
own presiding officer from its own
members, and shall keep a journal of
its proceedings
Even II the expression, leach body"
is not broad enough to include the
third body, made up Of the other two
and known as the common council. vet
the laws of 1874 and 1891 can be har-
moniously construed together because
the law of 1874 provides for the cleo
ton of president of the common
council and the law of 1891, under
the changed conditions brought about
by it, provides for the election OF a
presiding officer for each of the sep
arate bodies, so that they may each
transact business in an orderly man.
ner, While meeting separately.
1t is Just as necessary that there
should be presiding officer when the
TWO BODIES MEET
in joint session, as they are required to
DO in certain cases by the law of 1891
as that there should be a presiding
officer of each body while meeting
separately, so that, in this respect.
there is no inconsistency between the
law of 1874 and the law of 1891: on the
contrary, they are perfectly harmo-
NOUS, and, construed together. they
| provide for the necessary presiding
| officer under all requirements of both
| laws.
This position is rendered even more
| clear by that part of section / of the
Laws of 1891, which provides that: "All
| powers, duties and obligations held
| assumed and by law authorized and
| exercised by the common council. as
| now composed under any law of this
state, shall, save as otherwise pro-
| Vlded, be held assumed and exercised
| by the common council herein provided
Tor, and any power, authority and
| duty held, imposed and exercised under
| any present law by the common conn
Gil OF said city, as now composed. is.
save as otherwise herein provided
hereby granted and imposed upon the
common council of said city, as in this
act organized and provided"
Inc election of a president of the
common council was one of the powers
exercised by, and a duty imposed upon
| the common council under the law ot
1874, and it is nowhere taken away Inv
| the law of 1891.
Inc common council provided for in
the law of 1891 is not in any prone,
sense new body having its origin in
that law, but is simply continuation
OF the common council provided fol
IN the law of 1874, when considered as
an aggregate body, and the only ma
terlal departure in the law of 1891
Is as to the manner of performing its
duties by dividing the council
INTO TWO BRANCHES
and requiring them to meet separately
in certain cases.
For these reasons I am of the opin
ION that the office of president of tn,
common council still exists, and tina
the same was not abolished by the Law
of 1891.
Chapter GA, Special Laws of Mime
sofa, 1889, which regulates the name,