St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-02-02
ATTORNEY OF THE INSANE HOSPI-
TAI COMMISSION QUESTIONS
COURT,S JURISDICTION.
ARGUMENT ON THE POINT.
PORATE BODY AND CANNOT
BE SUED.
What He Is Alleged to Have Said
About Hastings and
Anoka.


day yesterday listening to arguments
in the fight over the location of the
fourth hospital for the insane; but, like
the proceedings Of the previous Satur-
day, only one horn of the dilemma was
touched upon, the question Of jurisdic-
ton. The problem has as many horns
as there are tails on a devil fish, and
Attorney Richardson has been consum-
Ing whole day arguing each horn
The attorneys for Hastings consumed
only about half an hour in discussing
their side Of the case yesterday, and
Mr.. Richardson occupied the remain
der, with the exception Of a few min
utes spent in reading affidavits.
None Of the members of the commits
sion were present in court, the whole
matter being left to the attorneys.
Hastings was represented by M. V. Sey-
mour, it. M. Gilman and Albert Schall-
er; Anoka by G. H Wyman, the Anoka
faction Of the committee by Harris
Richardson. and the Hastings faction
by e. 5. Durment A number of out
side attorneys and others took more or
less interest in the arguments and kept
dropping in and out all day
On the opening of court the motion
made at the first days hearing, to strike
out the answer of the Anoka faction
of the commission, was denied, the COM
mission by majority vote having in the
meantime ratified it as the answer Of
the commission. Then a number Of
afhdaV1ts, more or less immaterial as
to the real questions involved, were SUBJ
mitted by the plaintiff. Mr.. Richard
son said he had not been furnished with
copies Of these documents, and unless
bril-
wanted time to look into them and prob
ably file counter affidavits. The court
thought the question Of Jurisdiction
might be discussed without further de-
lay, as the affidavits had no bearing on
that feature Of the case. Mr.. Richard
son then began his argument in support
of his objection that the court did not
have jurisdiction.
He maintained that the commission
was not corporate body, and not be-
ing such, 1t could only sue and be sued
by having that power conferred upon it
by the law under which it was appoint
ed. But no such power was given. This
commission was simply acting for the
state. The members had no personal
interest, no individual interest except
as body. The commission was simply
the agent Of the Legislature, and is re-
quired to report to that body. There
fore, the law that prohibits judicial ac-
tons relative to legislative officers ap-
piled. The attorney general had wrong
fully lent the name of the state to be
used as plaintiff, and no provision hav-
ing been made that the commission
could sue and be sued, the anomoly was
presented by the state suing itself. The
state could not be sued. All authori-
ties We're against it. Mr.. Richardson
quoted from decisions of the state SUI
preme court and the supreme court of
the United States in support Of his ar
gument that the state is the real de-
PENDANT, and therefore the court had NO
jurisdiction. He further contended that
the attorney general had no power to
bring an action in the name of the state.
Reading from the law relative to the
powers of the attorney general, he urged
that there was no such authority given
to him.
Judge Brill-Suppose some contract
with the state is being violated, has the
attorney general no power to step in
and institute proceedings to enforce it?
Mr.. Richardson-Yes, in certain cases,
but in no case not covered by some gen.
eral provision of the statutes.
Judge Otis-If your position is cor
rect, there must be large number of
cases where the interests Of the state
would suffer because Of the lack of
authority to bring suit.
Mr.. RichardSon-You can imagine
such cases, but whether they arise in
practical administration is another
matter.
Mr.. Gilman-Where did the attorney
general get his authority to bring the
injunction suit against the Great
Northern?
Judge Kelly-That power is granted
by a special statute.
Mr. Richardson-Yes, your honor,
and you will find that in every case
the authority must come from statu-
tory provision expressed or implied.
Judge Brill-Mr. Richardson, would
not a principal have power to restrain
an agent from unlawful acts?
Mr. Richardson-Yes in some cases.
Judge Brill-Now, isn't the state
principal in this case and the COM
mission agent? And isn't this an action
to restrain the agent and not an action
of the state against itself, as you con-
tend? Suppose they should pay out
the money and then take the deed in
their own name, would not the state
have power to bring an action against
them?
Mr. Richardson-That would depend
upon the allegations. In this case
there is no allegation that the state is
interested in any manner whatever
There is nothing to show that the state
is likely to be injured at all. Then by
what authority is the name of the state
but to those who are intereSted-those
who have swamped us here with affi-
davits?
MI Seymour. replying to Richard
son, said that the plaintiff was proceed
ing on the theory Of the rights Of prin-
cipal and agent The state was the
principal and the commission the
agent If an agent of a corporation
entered into a contract that was bind
ing upon the principal and then turned
round and attempted to enter into a
second contract of a like nature with
some one else, an action would GER
tainly lie to restrain the agent, and
certainly the state had at least as
many rights against it's agents as has
q corporation, a creature Of the state.
Mr.. Seymour read from a decision by
Justice Brewer, sustaining the right of
the attorney general to bring an action
even where the state had no interest
other than that Of large part of the
community.
Mr.. Richardson-We don't deny that
the attorney general has such power
in cases where the power is given him.
Judge Brill said the court desired
some time to consider the question 1t
would probably be four or five days
before the question could be decided, so
until next Saturday. This was agree
able to all, and an adjournment was
taken accordingly.
The substance of the affidavits re-
ferred to is as follows:
P. A. McClernon, a resident of
Stephen, Marshall county, deposes that
on Dec. rs last Henry Hopper entered
atlantis place of business and began
q conversation with him relative to.
the location of the hospital at Hast
ings, in the course of which Hopper
said that he voted for the HASTINGS