The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-11
1T is A CITY.
Attorney General Childs as to Thief
River Falls.

Attorney General Childs as to Thief
River Falls.
Acknowledgement Childs yesterday
declined to file the information against
the city council Of Thief River Falls,
asked for by the village council, which
disputes the recent Incorporation as
a city. He says:
1t appears that the territory described in
the petition presented to the board of county
commissioners embraced that comprised with
in the village of Thief River Falls, together
with certain unorganized territory contiguous
thereto. 1t is insisted on the part Of the
applicants that the statute does not author
ize the erection of territory into city by
petition to the board of county commissioners
when any portion thereof consists of an IN
corporated city or village.
Section CT the act provides that, the in
habitants of contiguous territory not organ
lied as a city and having not less than LOCO
population may become incorporated as
city, etc.
It is strenuously urged that the words cor
village" should be considered as following the
word Getty"
1 am unable to subscribe to such view.
1t seems more consonant to assume that the
words were purposely omitted. The object
aimed at by the statute is the Incorporation
of cities hereunder. 1t provides for the or
ganization Hereunder of territory not already
organized into city, and the reorganization
hereunder of cities and villages. 1t Is mar
row and unwarranted view to hold that the
legislature contemplated only territory not or
gained INTO e1Jner city or village govern
ment. Rarely, If ever, has there existed or
will there ever exist, community of 1000
inhabitants permanently established, with
out having been Incorporated into a munich
pal government. Out statutes have provided
for the Incorporation of villages with only
175 inhabitants. A case might be conceived
where village with population Of a few
hundred adjoining or contiguous to a popu-
lous but unincorpOrated community, the two
aggregating far in excess of the statutory re-
quirement; yet, under the view advanced by
applicants, city government could be secured,
If at all, only by a circuitous, expensive and
protracted procedure.
1t Is urged that the statute does not make
any distinction between city and a village,
and that where the former term is employed,
in view of the distinct employment of the
terms "city and village" throughout the
legislation Of this state, and in view Of the
act of 1895 itself, 1t seems idle to contend
that the term city" as used In section 1 is
onomous Herewith. The position of appli-
cants is, in my Judgment, overthrown by
force Of the following language found In Sec
ton %:
THE territory originally incorporated into
said, shall thereafter cease to be a part of
any township other organization for any
purpose whatever, except for county pur-
poses"
l can conceive of no other organization
than that of a village or borough to which
fore obvious that the statute contemplates
that something more than mere unorganiZed
territory may be Incorporated. So far as the
property of the village Is concerned section
merely reincorporated as distinct entity,
or, as in the case under consideration, be-
comes merged by Incorporation under Sec
ton l.