The Saint Paul globe., 1897-10-23
ANOTHER INFORMAL TALK
TWO POINTS IN THE LAW GRE
ATING THE BOARD ARE
DISCUSSED.
WHAT CHANGES CAN THEY MAKER
The Question as to Whether or Not
the Schools Can Come Under
Charter Provision Discussed.

a little over TWO hOurS, all OIL WHICH
was spent in a discussion of the pow
ers of the commission that developed
some vital points, among them being
the question of the constitutionality of
the enabling act of 1897 and the power
of the charter commission to include in
the proposed new charter any provi-
sions regulating the government Of the
public schools of st. Paul.
Twelve of the fifteen members of the
commission were in attendance the alb
sentees being W. B. Dean, Pierce But
Ter and J. F. Kreiger. The first matter
to come before the commission was the
report of the committee on rules, which
was submitted by Col. w. P. CIough.
The report in substance was as follows:
Section L provides that the president and
other officers shall perform the usual duties
OF such officers in deliberate bodies.
Section 2, that ten members shall constitute
a quorum, but a smaller number may ad-
journ meetings.
Section g. that regular meetings shall be
held Friday evening of each week, in the city
hall.
Section f. that the president may, or on ap-
plication of two members, shall call special
meetings, on giving the members fortyeight
hours notice in writing.
Section >. The secretary shall keep a rec
ord of all the proceedings.
Section 6, that the present city charter shall
form the basis of the work of the commits
sion, beginning at chapter l and proceeding
in consecutive order to the end.
Section Z. No proposition shall be conSid-
cred by the commission unless submitted in
writing, except by unanimous consent.
Col. CIough explained that the COM
mittee had not deemed it necessary
to formulate other than the simplest
rules for the guidance Of the commits
sion, as other rules might be added
when found necessary
Referring to the rule providing that
ten members shall constitute a quOr-
um, Judge Lusk suggested that it
might not look we'll to have a bare
majority of ten control the action Of
the entire commission, but Mr.. Light
ner explained that it was undOubted-
lyF intended that whatever charter was
finally framed would be signed by all
the members. The rule was designed
simply to facilitate the work of the
commission. The report was then
adopted.
Before proceeding with the task Of
charter making, it was the sense of
the committee that it would be we'll
to begin at the very beginning, and
accordingly Secretary Innis first read
the constitutional amendment, which
afforded the basis of the enabling act
passed at the last session of the legis-
lature. Following this the secretary
read the enabling act itself. And here
the commission made a. discovery and
encountered it's first difficulty.
Judge Greenleaf Clark called atten-
ton to the fact that the constitutional
amendment provides that the charter,
when framed, may be adopted "by
four of the qualified voters
of the city voting at the next election,
at which the charter is submitted"
whereas the enabling act says that the
charter may be adopted by the vote
"Of four -seVenths of those voting on
the question:" which is an entirely diff
feTent provision. Judge Clark asked
what the result would be.
Mr.. Lightner said that the constitu
tiOnal amendment must prevail.
Judge Lusk regarded the variance
between the constitutional amendment
and the enabling act as a serious one.
He questioned whether the variance
did not render the act unconstitutional.
Mr.. Lightner thought not. In his
opinion. the act was otherwise valid,
while the constitutional amendment
must be followed in the adoption of the
charter by the voters
Col ClOugh pointed out another in
consistency between the constitution
and the act the former providing that
the charter should be submitted al the
next election following its completion,
while the act says that the city aU-
thorities shall decide whether it shall
be submitted at the next election or at
a special election.
Mr. Lightner then stated his concep-
tiOn of the proper course to be pursued
by the commission. If the commission
thought that the law was entirely un-
constitutional, each member mi ght then
and there decline to serve as Mr.. Bell
did. But the commission was appoint
ed to serve under the enabling act, not
to question its cOnstitutiOnality. That
was a question for the courts to decide.
Two other cities had charter commits
siOns at work under the same act. The
question as to the constitutionality of
the act could never be decided until
the commission had drafted a charter.
IF it was clear to my mind" added
Mr. Lightner, that this act was Who'll
ly void, [ would either go on and fin
iSh my work, on this commission, or else
| would resign at once. [ therefore
move that we proceed to consider the
first chapter of the present charter"
W. ?. Murray opposed the motion
for the reason that all the members
were not provided with copies of the
charter, and likewise with copies of
various other proposed charter bills,
such as the Howard, the SanbOrn and
the Tri-city charters.
Mr.. Lightner explained that the pur
pose of his motion was simply to get
the commission started, nothing more.
Mr. Murray would find upon glancing
at the present charter, that chapter
merely defined the boundaries of the
city and didn't call for any amend
ments.
Mr.. Murray glanced quickly over
the first page of chapter l, and re-
marked:
81 see several sections right here that
I want to amend myself"
Judge Clark then arose and proceed
ed to set forth the difficulties that con-
fronted the commission. He called at
tentiOn to the existing laws granting
certain powers to and prescribing the
duties of the so-called mixed boards,
such, for instance, as the board of con-
troll, the board of equalization, board
of abatement, the joint court house
and city hall commission, in which
the county has a voice and is officially
represented Judge Clark did not be-
lieve that the charter commission had
any right to change the provisions
regulating these boards. Neither could
it touch the municipal court estab-
lished under q special act. Judge Clark
also inquired whether it would not be
wise to insert general clause in the
new charter providing that all laws
granting rights to st, Paul be retained
except as expressly repealed by the
new charter.
Col. Clough then suggested another
problem. What was the charter of
st. Paul? What composed it? Col.
Clough feared that, if new charter
was adopted, it was going to give a