The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-10-31

| Hastings ana the state LOT the puT-
| chase of a site for the hospital; fifth
in holding that the action of the COM
| mission at it's meeting in St. Paul
| Dec IS, 1896 in selecting Hastings as
| the location of the hospital. did not
| thereby exhaust and render its powers
| functus officio in respect to the place
! where the hospital should be locatedi
sixth, in holding that when this action
| was brought, nothing of substance re-
| manned to be done by the commission,
| to which the injunction could apply;
| seventh, in holding that the Anoka
| site had been acquired and the deed
| therefor delivered to the state auditor,
and that the act of acquisition was
| consummated so far as within the
| power of the board. and that nothing
remained for the board to do. but to
cause hospital plans to be prepared
| and make report of their doings to the
| legislature; eighth, in holding that. at
| the meeting of said commission at
Fergus Falls, Mimi, Dec. q, 1895. that
the viva yoce vote of Henry Hopper
should be counted as a vote to locate
said fourth hospital for the insane at
the city of Anoka; ninth, in dissolving
the injunction.
Following the statement of facts, the
argument takes up the contention that
the contract was conSummated when
on the ninth ballot, Hastings received
contend:
AS Hastings had submitted but one
proposition, vote for Hastings can
only be interpreted as vote to ac-
cept the Hastings proposition. If there
had been more than one proposition
from Hastings, as was the case with
Anoka, then further action would be
necessary to designate which Of the
sites offered would be accepted. But
there was. but one proposition from
Hastings.
Second. But If there is any doubt as
to what was intended by the commits
sioners in voting for Hastings at the
meeting On the 18th day Of December,
it is perfectly competent for them to
testify as to. what they intended by
such vote. A number of cases are
cited:
The affidavit of Messrs Smith, Bondy
and Carlson is quoted to sustain the
contention that the action of the board
when voting was intended by all the
final and full selection Of site for the
hospital. 1t continues:
Our statute, Sec. 4215 Compiled Stat
utes 1894, only requires the contract for
the sale Of land, or some note or mem
orandum thereof, expressing the con-
sideration to be in writing "and sub
scribed by the party by whom the lease
or sale is to be made, or his lawful
agent thereunto. authorized in writ
ing" 1t does not require any accept
ance Of an offer or proposition to be
signed by the purchaser, or to be in
writing. Our statute in this. respect is
a transcript from the statute Of New
York, Michigan and Wisconsin, and it
is well settled in these states that the
acceptance of an offer or proposition
need not be in writing subscribed by
the purchaser.
But the Hastings proposition was, in
point of fact, accepted in writing by the
commissioners. If the vote taken on
Dec. Is, 1895, is to be considered as a
vote upon the acceptance or monaco
ceptance, then the meagre record kept
by the secretary shows its acceptance
by the commission. And the affidavits
Of Bondy Carlson and Smith show that
the Hastings proposition was accepted
, and the, officials thereof immediately
notified and informed of such accept
ance, and the mayor of said city there
after officially Informed the city coun-
ell of Hastings that said hospital had
been located at Hastings
Cases are cited to establish that the
commission had no right to reconsider
its decision once determined upon.
County supervisors, council committees
and a Dakota county case are among
those referred to along this line. The
Duluth city aSSeSSorShip'S case is also
cited.
The argument deals at some length
with the plea of the defense that there
was nothing left to enjoin when the
ssuit was brought, and finally goes at
length into the change of mind ex-
perienced by Commissioner Hopper after
that meeting. 1t says:
The vote of Hopper amounts simply
to this He votes that Hastings was
the best site for the hospital, but that
from motives of personal preference
he will not vote for the best site, but
for one which, in his judgment, is in
ferior.
Public policy will not permit him to
betray the interests Of his principal in
that manner. Here is no concealment
Of his position, but an open announce
ment of the result of his deliberations
We submit that the mere form in which
he submits the result of his delibera
tons to the commission cannot alter
the effect Of them. And in this connec-
ton, it will be remembered that this is
not an action between individuals, but
an action by the plaintiff in its capaci-
ty as a sovereign state.
The courts have gone very far in
cases of this sort, in permitting an in
curry to be made into the motives and
the reasons for action taken by legis-
lative agents of this character The
courts have gone much farther than it
Is necessary to go here, and declare
that where the motives are not mani
fest in the action of the legislative
agent, that public policy requires that
they may be investigated. Of course.
the motives which may lie concealed in
the mind of a judge or of a legislator
cannot be shown to effect or impeach
the result, yet this principle is con
fined in it's operations in cases of mu-
nicipal agencies to actions between
third parties, and does not apply to an
action brought in the name of the
state.
So applying the doctrine to this case.
1t would be perfectly proper to show
by extrinsic- evidence that Mr.. Hopper
acted fraudulently in casting his vote
for Anoka. That Is not necessary for
here is a self-confessed fraudulent act.
Here is an agent who is appointed 10
select site which is the most adyan-
tageous to the state. of Minnesota, and
who attempts to deliberately betray
his principal, the state of Minnesota
by declaring that he refuses to eyer,
else the judgment which his Commits
sion required him to exercise, but on
account of favoritism to certain of his
neighbors votes for site which his
judgment condemned We cannot he
lie'7e that under the authorities cited
and under the most general principles
of law applicable to the case of nrin-
clpal and agent, that this vote can he
counted as a vote for Anoka.
In the language of the courts when
considering vote of this sort the es
sential requisite is the determination
or the commission and not the form