The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-10-29
COPELAND MUST SHOW CAUSE
WHY HE HAS ASSUMED THE row
ERS OF THE OH
BOARD.
HEARING in THE SUPREME COURT.
COnstitutiOnalfty of the Legislative
Act Called Into cues
ton.

blu one Of them Is fraught with i'm
portance to the citizens Of St. Paul.
1t is the suit brought by the state,
through the attorney general, at the
instance of the members of the old
board of public works to compel the
new commissioner of public works,
John Copeland, to show the court by
what right he has seized the books,
papers and Office of the old board. The
substance of the complaint and an
swer were published in the G . b e
the action was commenced. The briefs
of the REALTORS and respondent, which
have just been filed with the supreme
court clerk, are in substance as fol-
lows: Messrs. Eller, How and Butler
having prepared the brief of the re-
lators, and Walter Chaplin, that Of the
respondent.
The brief of the REALTORS, after setting
forth a statement Of the facts, citing
the action of the common council in
adopting the law of 1895, providing for
a commissioner of public works, and
the subsequent action of John Copeland
in taking forcible possession Of the Of
flee room, files, books, records, papers
and seal of the board of public works,
states that there are two questions in
the case.
First-As to the constitutionality Of chapter
228, general laws of Minnesota for 1895 an
proved April 25. 1896.
Second-If said chafpter is valid and con-
stitutional then does its adoption by the city
council entirely abrogate the old board of
public works?
1T is argued that the law is void.
first. because 1t delegates to the COM
mon council the privilege of deciding
whether or not it shall be operative.
Numerous authorities are cited declar-
ing the existence here in full vigor Of
the doctrine that the legislature NAV
not delegate it's power to enact laws.
Furthermore, section 146 Of the law
provides as follows:
This act shall be enforced in any city when
ever the common council of any such city
embraced within it's provisions shall adopt
the same by a majority vote of all the mem
bers and all acts and parts of acts
In any charter or special law relating to said
city shall be thereby, as to said city, repealed
in so far as the same relates to the subject
matter of this act"
It is argued that If the ordinary in
tendment of words is to be followed.
the common council Is given power not
only to put the act in force and opera
ton by ar ordinance, but as well. act
ually. to repeal former laws of the leg
islature. Various authorities are also
quoted demonstrating that the prin-
| ciple that a legislature may enact a
law to take effect upon a contingency,
applies only in cases in which the
contingency is relevant to the subject
of the law and such that it's happening
or not happening will affect the ques-
Etion of the eXpediency of the law.
s@F"The fact is hat this law instead of
submitting to the people the questions
as to what burdens they shall hear,
and how they shall be administered,
/ LII ---s~1 L. H.
body which imposes and administers
the burden, viz, the common council.
The principle does not define the powers
of it's agents, but the agents define the
powers which it shall exercise over it's
principal. Nor may it be said that the
law is submitted to the city as a cor
poration. The people form the corpor-
alton and not the council or any other
officers. Goo Ind. 5S5.)
Nor can it be said that the common
council are the properly constituted rep
r~esentatfyeS of the people to accept or
adopt the law in question, for two reas-
ons; first, the legislature could not so
constitute the council without the peo-
pies consent; second, the people have
not constituted the common council
their representatives for the purpose Of
adopting this law.
1.-THE second general head Of the brief
holds that the law Is not a general law,
and II a general law, is not uniform in
it's operation throughout the state. 1t
is argued that in order that this law
may become a general law, it must
operate alike pom all the cities Of the
class of cities provided for in the law.
The most asua inspection of the law
shows that such is not a characters
tic of the law, for it operates not at all
upon any city in the class covered by
it, unless it shall be adopted" by the
00povanp o011nai1 ~ ~ a;4xx L. ---H
fled vote. The fact of the matter is
that this law now operates in ST. Paul
n does not operate in Minneapolis.
1t may be possible that in course Of
time this law may operate alike upon
all the cities Of the class covered by
1T, but that is not sufficient to comply
with the mandatory provision of the
constitution that the laws affecting the
government of the cities shall be gen.
eral.'
THE act Is that this law Is now a
local law. That is the result, and that
we beg to suggest, was intended to be
the result, when the law passed. 1t it
is sustained, there may be as many
such laws passed as there are cities in
the state. The constitutional provisions
with regard to special legislation will
be emasculated, and the supreme power
will lie not in the people, but in the
Legislature"
The brief further contends that there
is no proper basis Of classification in
this law. 1t is a classification Of cities
Of over 100, 900 inhabitants whose COM
mon councils shall adopt the provisions
Of the law, for in no other cities in
the state of Minnesota is the law to
take effect in it's terms. 1t is also argu--
ed that in any ase the law is not uni
form in its operation throughout the
state.
In conclusion, the brief contends that
the law violates the obligations of
existing contracts with the asphalt
pavement contractors. 1t is argued
hat it is not within the power of the
city council. without the consent of
the contractors On the one side and
the property owners, who have paid
for their interests in these contractors
on the other, to amend these contracts
by providing that one man shall be the
arbiter as to the efficiency and con-
dition of the work, instead of q board
OF men, as provided by the terms of
the contract. The treasurer of the
city may not pay the semi-annual in
stallments of interest during the term
of guaranty agreed upon with the
asphalt contractors, nor the entire re-
tanned amount at the end of such
term upon an order of a commissioner
instead of a board of public works.
Lastly, it is argued that even If the
law in question is valid, the board of
public works still exists as a depart
ment Of the government of the city
of st. Paul. The law does not repeal
all special laws relating to public
works in the cities covered by 1t. It
repeats only special laws pertaining to
the subject matter of this act."
The brief of the respondent makes
seven distinct uojuts First that SEQ