St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-02-18

neapolis, under the operation of the city
charter clause giving the power to regulate /
sale, compelled the gas company to reduce
ne price OF gas 30 cents per thousand. Did
ne gas companies of Minnesota want that
provision perpetuated and made universal all
over the state? The sequel shows they did
Another section of the act of 1895 not con-
a,ieu IN that OF 1888 consists of nearly two
pages inserted into the chapter on limit of
~ ponu ISSUES. Inc act of 1895 opens the gate
~ sast Increase OF aldermanic bond issues
by breaking down the legal limit Tho in
crease is in the line OF bond issues for WA
IT, "EsAs proJects; and hereupon hangs a
raIe: IN the year 1894 was born in the citv
OF Minneapolis the great Columbia Heiebts
reseryoir-realty enterprise. The president ~ =
the Twin City street railway owned Ianded
estate of knobs and brush in Anoka romntv
adjoining. and this estate sadly needed i'm
provement to be of market value. Our
obliging council, seeing that there was
chance to help the cause of sanitation of
labor. and of Anoka county improvement at
one benign stroke. voted to invest 81. 100 900
IN reservoir and filter system, to be located
out on this Anoka county estate with con-
Meeting parkways to unite it to the city But
q difficulty arese-the mastering of means.
u cost 100000 simply to purchase the pipes
through which TO pump the water out into the
country and let 1t back again. The CITY
treasury mad no surplus; but, instead had
2 case OF 100000 of delinquent taxes on its
hands. The bond limit was well-nigh ex
haGsted. This was in 1894. Then came the
legislature and the Howard charter; and To-
and behold. two pages in that charter make
it all right. New bonds may be issued dis
placing the outstanding water bonds Of the
city. and these bends shall not be count
ed a part of the city debt as limited by law.
This extends the bond limit 81. go 900. But
a second clause states that no bonds issued
for water and light purposes shall be con-
sidered part of city debt as limited by law
And thus the gateway to several millions of
bond issues is left open to an enterprising and
opllglng council. and the law and the people
cannot say nay.
,o6AA third clause in the Howard charter Of
1873. not found in that of 1893, is the per-
nlanent improvement revolving fund provis-
ion for issuing certificates of indebtedness.
without the prejudice of the debt limit for
pursuing paving and the like Now since
the charter of 1898 the Utah AsphaIt Paving
company has come into existence in our city
has captivated the city council. and made
II an asphalt council of great enterprise and
enthusiasm. Indeed it is only by mayoralty
vetoes and organization of citizens that our
enthusiastic city fathers can be kept from
paving the whole city in Utah. The revolv-
ing fund, on the present basis of valuation
would permit the issue of $3.50 600 of paving
debt in st Paul and $3.50, O00 of paving debt
in Minneapolis; and that would pave in Utah
and Trinidad the whole business section of
either city.
violates the principle laid down by Judge
Cooley and recognized generally, that There
is no power to refer the adoption of a gem
eral act to the people of state
In the S7th Minnesota, Chief Justice Gil
| hllan: in the decision declaring unconstitu-
tional an act submitting the county seat cues
ton to a vote. said cit is impracticahle to
submit general law. The proposition that a
general law to be operative must be submitted
to and adopted blythe electors in each county in
the state would be absurd. and equally alb
surd that general law might be so opera
tive IN the counties where adopted and in
operative where rejected" But this is pre-
clsely the case of the Howard charter act in
regard to cities
The Howard act is unconstitutional second
in that it violates the constitutional amend
ment of 1892. which prohibits the legislature
from passing an act Ito amend, extend
modify any special or local laws. If il re-
peals these special charters the cities of
Minnesota would be without name. bound
aries or ward limits. and without school
library boards; for the Howard charter pro-
vides none of these things. But if it amends
these special charters, it is unconstitutional
by force of the amendment of 1892 1t does
not repeal those acts. because it specially
provides that these cities shall retain existing
names boundaries, ward lines. school and
| library boards. 1t therefore simply amends
| these acts. and is therefore unconstitutional.
For example. the charter of Minneapolis has
twelve chapters. The Howard act adopts and
! continues in force chapters / and IL, and
amends the act as regards the remaining
! chapters by striking out. by addition, and by
! substitution. 1t amends the St Paul charter
| by continuing chapter Ia, the fifteen pages on
| the school system, and amends the act other
wise by addition, elimination and substtu-
| ton. II is an act which amends the exist
| ing charters OF the state, and therefore is
unconstitutional.
1t is unconstitutional third because 1t
adopts and continues In force much special
legislation, and is not uniform in its applica-
/ ton. 1t adopts the patrol limits Of Mime
apos and declares that they shall remain
established and fiXed'' which is contrary to
the rule which it makes for patrol limits in
! other cities. 1t likewise adopts the special
! kind of board of tax levy which exists in
! Minneapolis. and allows that city although
| 1t is not named to have a different tax levy
| board from other cities. On this point Judge
Mitchell recently declared. in the Duluth tun-
| mel case: ANY act which adopts and ex-
| tends existing legislation is obnoxious to
| the constitution if it created the special
! legislation which it thus attempts to extend
and perpetuate.' Judge Mitchell again COW
erS the case when he says: Amy legislation
! touching any branch of city government must
reduce all cities, all cities of the same
class, to uniformity in respect to the par
I ttcular with which the legislation deals"
Thus on three scores the Howard act is OF
| doubtful constitutionality. The city which
adopts 1t is mighty uncertain in regard to
! the kind of government it will get but il is
absolutely certain of one thing-costly ltiga-
! ton which raises the doubt of the city's con-
! Stitutional existence corporation. It's
! bOndholders will be frightened. The buyers
of debt certificates will keep away. Officials
will be uncertain of their salaries, and con-
tractors will be uncertain where their bills
are payable; and there will be a general in
stinct to steal from under and let the gov
eminent strictly alone. Your Bell charter
may be full of red tape, but red tape is bet
! ter than mountain of litigation and a
morass of uncertainty The home rule plan
/ begins at the foundation and rests on con-
/ sttutional amendment There is no possbl-
! ity Of its being declared unconstitutional
! as there is doubt of its being democratic
| and true to government for and by the peo-
! pie