The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-27
SUIT INVOLVING THE RIGHTS OF
CORPORATIONS is TO BE AR
GUED TODAY.
FOREST CEMETERY's SUIT
AGAINST THE constants FAMILY
WILL RAISE SOME MUCH
MOOTED POINTS.
WHAT CAN THE soULLEss Do:
Limit of Their Power One of the
Lines the Courts Are Asked
to Draw.

There will be up for argument in the
supreme court today an action which,
though between the direct litigants it
merely involves a few acres of land,
promises to cause no end of uncertain
ty as to the status of a large number
of the corporations in the state of Min
nesota, if the contention of the counsel
is sustained, for it is argued that the
chapter of the General Laws Of 1870
amending the law under which all the
corporations formed in this state for
a quarter of a century have been
formed is unconstitutional and invalid
The Forest Cemetery association, OF
this city, wanting to extend its ground,
applied to the district court to con-
denim for it's use certain property own
ed by William and Bertha COnstans
The law defining corporations, known
as chapter "a of the General Laws OF
1866, as amended by chapter 30 OF the
General Laws of 1870 gives the ceme-
terry association the right to such con-
demnation proceedings The dlstrlct
court in this county held that the
Forest Cemetery association was en-
titled to the condemnation II askeu'
ana rendered verdict in its favor.
Now, however, the defendants appeal
to the supreme court, urging that the
finding of the court that the FOrest
Cemetery association lis an existing
pubIic CORPORATION is not within the
issues raised by the pleadinSs; was not
litigated by consent, and is not JusIi-
fed by the evidence.
Briefly stated, the objections OF law
to the order of the lower court are as
follows:
That the statute which attempts to
confer Jurisdiction Chapter 80, General
Laws 1870 is void because its subject,
especially that of condemnation. is not
expressed in the title, thus conflicting
with section q of article 4 OF the
constitution, which provides: mo law
shall embrace more than one subject,
which shall be expressed in Its TUE.
That the act embraces more than one
subject, viz the enactment OF bylaws
of a cemetery association. and the au-
thority of the cemetery association to
condemn private property.
That the act is void because it au-
thorizes the taking of private property
for a private use.
That in so far as the statute in ques-
ton purports to authorize condemIa-
ton, it is unconstitutional under the
federal constitution, in that it deprlVes
a person of his property without due
process of law.
Warner, Richardson & Lawrence,
attorneys for the appellants, i'll their
brief say:
The law authorizing cemetery associations
was passed in 1851 (chapter 81 of the Revised
Statutes). The power OF such corporations
to condemn land was not attempted TO oe
this court show, attempt has ever Deen
made to exercise this power until the pres
emf time.
corporations by simply filing a certificate.
signed and acknowledged by TWO private cru
zens, in the office OF the register OF qeeus-
it is not necessary to have II pupllsheQ VI
filed with the secretary of state. NO o0nd
or security is required from the trustees. Inc
trustees may be elected for all time by the
associates who formed the corporation ana
their successors, and the lot owners excluded
from all voice in the management OF the cor
poration. (Sections 30SS-309l, g. S. 1891 The
trustees may sell the lot upon sucn terms
and subject to such conditions and restric-
lions as they shall prescribe. (Section $685. U:
S. 1S94) There is nothing in the law that
gives the public or the public authorities any
right of interment. The trustees may re
strict the use of the cemetery to the inter
ment of bodies of persons belonging to a
particular religion, church nati0naii'y' race
society, lodge or family.
To be sure the law as a police regula-
ticn provides that all plated lots OF such
associations shall be conveyed expressly Tor
burial purposes only and makes Invalid
conveyance of such lots not so conditioned.
But that is SO in the case OF cemeteries
plated by private persons. (Secuon 1888, u.
S. 1894.)
While common decency and the public
health require that the pubic authorities nave
a say as to the perpetuity OF all cemeteries
whether private public, the law does not
require these corporations to perform public
duties or to be open to the interment OF all.
There is no more reason why corporation
organized under title 3, chapter "a, General
| Statutes, should have the power to take
private property than that natural person
Mating a portion Of his land should be given
a like power. Both serve exactly the same
purpose and no cemetery can be considered
a public cemetery unless the public nave a
right to demand that it be open to the IN
torment of all.
iealously guarded and the doctrine Of emf
nent domain should be restricted rather than
enlarged.
cemetery association, in the opposing
1T is urged against the validity. of this law
that the right of eminent domain is restricted
IN corDorations under title l OF chapter 34
Such, however, was not the manifest inten-
ton of the legislature Title l provides that
persons may become incorporated LOT the
purpose of building, improving and operating
railways, telegraph, canals or SLACK wafer Ter
navigation upon any river or lake, ana all
works of internal Improvement which re-
uure taking of private property, or any ease
ment therein" There are many purposes
not included under title 1 for which corpora
tions may be properly organized with the
right of eminent domain, and the careful
legislator would look elsewhere for them
Title as we'll as g. of chapter "a, provides
for such right. There is no claim that there
was any deception improper purpose i'll
enacting the law under consideration IN this
case.
Does the law embrace more than one sub
ject?
Every law of this state which provides for
the formation of corporation contains many
sections or subdivisions, relating to the
may form 1t, what the article shall contain.
what powers 1t shall have, what property
it may hold or own and how acquire and dis
| pose of it. what officers it shall have and the
extent of their authority etc. If each OF
these parts of a law is a separate subject
within the meaning of the constitution, and
requires a separate act for its amendment
as counsel contend, then the original act
embracing all the part under one title mus
fail Such holding woL nullify most of our
| statute laws. This claim of counsel is so
| obviously erroneous and without precedent
that l deem it advisable to go no farther
than refer to the case of State VS.. Cassidy
| (22 Mimi. 312) in this court, where the law
on this question is fully and clearly ex
pounded.
NEIGHBORS IN A FIGHT.
| vrank Stees and Frank KOhout
Land in Jail.
Frank Stees, his sister, Mrs. Katie