The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-15
DENIED THE WRIT
JUDGE wILLIsToN sUsTAINs THE
POWER OF INTERSTATE PARK
COMMISSIONERS.
GOVERNOR HAD THE RIGHT
TO APPOINT THEM, IN THE
OPINION OF THE TRIAL
COURT.
CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT
Urged Against the Commission by
Mrs. Dorothy Are Withheld for
Further Investigation.
GOVERNOR HAD THE RIGHT
MISCONDUCT

| George III. Hazard, the interstate
park commissioner. called on Gov.
| Clough yesterday and presenting the
| first official announcement of the de-
| cision of Judge Williston in the suit
which involved the legality of the COM
mission.
The court sustains the power claimed
| by the commission, and removes the
last apparent legal obstacle from the
perfection of the interstate park
scheme at least so far as this side Of
the st. 4Croix river is concerned
MRS. julia Ia Dorothy endeavored to
| secure an injunction restraining the
! governor and the commissioner from
| taking her lands under the condemna-
| ton proceedings begun by the commits
| sion. Judge Williston refused to grant
| the injunction, accompanying the de-
| cision by a memorandum in which are
set forth the provisions of the law I'M
| der which the condemnation proceed
ings were instituted, and the appoint
ment of Messrs. Clayton, Fetch and
!. Hazard as the commission. Mrs.
Dorothy contended that the interstate
park act was in violation of the con-
shall be deprived Of life, liberty or
property, without due process Of law"
and that private property shall not be
taken for public use without just COM
| pensation therefore first paid or Sc
| cured
| 1t was contended by the plaintiff that
| the act creating the park commission
does not establish an impartial tribun-
| al in the meaning Of the law It is
argued that the land owner has no op-
portunity to be heard, or to challenge
any person appointed on the commits
sion. It is urged farther that the
legislature could not delegate to the
| governor the appointment of the COM
missioners. On these points, Judge
Williston decides:
In this state is appears to be the
rule that the right Of exercising the
eminent domain is political and not
a Judicial question; that the right has
been delegated by the people to the
legislative department of the govern
ment, which department may provide
\ the manner In which the right shall be
| exercised subject only to the constr.
tut1onal limitations quoted, and to the
/ right of the proper owner to have an
| impartial tribunal to determine the
just compensation to which he may be
| entitled-a tribunal before which he
| may be heard; and that within such
| legislation the power Of the legislature
Is supreme and it may determine
] whether the tribunal shall be a jury
a court without a. jury, or a commits
! sion. Several Minnesota cases are cited
| in support of this view including that
| of Fairchild VS.. City Of ST. Paul, 46
Mimi. $40. In Weir VS.. Railroad
Company. the court holds that the
al Q +bn
and that the manner of it's exercise Is,
| except as to compensation, unrestrain,
| ed. The manner is a question of ex-
pediency and propriety rather than
| power
In the case Of the City Of st. Paul
| VS.. Nickel the presumption is that
the members of the board are COM
| petent and impartial and that they will
| faithfully perform their official duties.''
Judge Williston says:
| The same presumption obtains In
the case at bar and cannot say from
the matters contained in the affidavits
submitted that it appears from q pre-
ponderance of the evidence that such
presumption has been overthrown"
In the case of Langford VS.. Ramsey
county commissioners, the act under
| consideration was one which was
formed on the theory that the state
was everything, the individual moth
ing, and that the landowner had no
right which the legislature was bound
to respect.
In Smart VS.. Palmer IA N. Y, 1885,
1t was held: TT may be stated gener-
ally that due process Of law requires
an orderly proceeding adapted to the
| nature Of the case in which the citizen
has an opportunity to be heard and to
defend, enforce and protect his
| rights"
In State VS.. State Board of Medical
| mil
holds: Due process of law or the
law of the land, which means the
same, is not necessarily judicial pro-
ceedings. Private rights and the en-
3oyment of property may be -interfered
| with by the legislative or executive as
| we'll as the judicial department of the
government"
Judge WilliSton then proceeds to the
contention of the plaintiff that the
legislature, not having power to de-
termine the amount Of compensation to
be paid. cannot delegate to the COVER
nor the appointment of commissioners
who shall determine it. On this the
court rules:
THE right of the legislature to dele
gate the power of appointing such
commissioners to the court or a Judge
thereof is UNDERSTANDABLE. 1t is not ap-
parent why the governor might not
with equal prOpriety to the official to
whom such power might be delegated.
In the light of the authorities Of
this state, it must be held that the
legislature had power to delegate the
appointment of the commission to the
governor, that the plaintiff was not
entitled to notice of the time and place
where such commission would be ap-
pointed; that the commission so APP
pointed was q fair and impartial trib-
unal and that the fact that the law
makes the decision of such tribunal
final violates no provision of the state
constitution, that the law does require
notice to the land owner Of the time
and place of the meeting of the COM
mission for the purpose Of determining
the compensation to be paid and gives
to him ample opportunity to be heard
and does provide a means Of paying
the sum determined to be just compen-
sation, and is valid act While the
manner of appointing commissioners
and the making Of their determination
as to the amount of compensation a
finality is not in accordance with pre-
yious legislation in this state, it is
within the power Of the legislature to
provide, and purely question of policy
which the court. cannot revise.
I'm regard to the alleged miscon-
duct of the commissioners, that is too
grave question to be determined upon
affidayits. At this time all that is de-
termined Is that the plaintiff is not
entitled to the writ OF Injunction