The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-22
OUR CARELESS LAWMAKERS.

The decision rendered by Judge
Lewis, holding unconstitutional the
Ramsey county salary act, exhibits in
striking form the carelessness, acct
dental or intentional, of our Iegisla-
lures when the most important steps
are under consideration We do not
know whether any influences were at
work in the legislature to render this
law imperative, or whether it repre-
sents mere inability to frame a statute
that would accomplish the ends desir
ed without coming in conflict with the
constitution of the state. Whatever
may have been the cause, the effect is
patent. AS Judge Lewis says in his
summing up. the character of the act
is crude; it is full of confused and re-
puSnant provisions; it deals with it's
subject in meager and incomplete
way, and in general is so full of de-
fects that it cannot be sustained
Some of the points made by the court
are so obvious. even to lay intelligence,
that one can scarcely understand how
they were overlooked by the trainers
and supporters of the bill: while others
raise the question whether we have,
not in passing a constitutional amend
ment against special legislation. set up
an autocrat against whose decisions the
people themselves will find it impossi
bic to appeal. In the first place. if the
act. as the court holds. embraces more
than one subject, as it appears to do,
and that the one expressed in it's til
tie. it is invalid. In the next place,
the classification which it sets up is
held to be faulty. In truth, all CLASH
fcations based upon population are
open to just the objections urged by
the court. The admission Of population
as basis for classifying minor politi-
cal divisions of the state so as to dis
tinguish general from special legisla-
ton. gives birth to a whole host of
questions and difficulties that cannot be
met in any rational manner.
The truth is that population as a
basis of classification is generally used
only as a subterfuge to make general
ir form acts that are special in sub
stance. Since. however, the courts have
held this to be a valid method of clas-
sifying the act referred to scarcely
seems to trangress more than many
others which proceed upon the same
theory. That the officials of the sew
eIal counties of the state should receive
Il;
county should practically have power
to fix the salaries of it's own officers.
does not seem to US Objectionable.
Again, it would seem that, if no law is
valid in interpreting which one must
consult a previous special law, then we
can never get away from the special
legislation that was enacted before
the adoption of the constitutional
amendment. Our statutes are full of
special legislation passed prior to that
time and still in effect. We cannot get
rid of their provisions by subsequent
special acts, because these are now
forbidden. If they are repealed out
right, the community might be left
NIlliOuI any law upOI d SUBJECT WnerG
direction is desirable.
These comments pass beyond the par
ticular purpose or province of the
county salary act and deal with the
larger propositions rapidly arising to
first Importance, whether or not it is
possible for our legislatures, under the
constitution as it stands, to get away
from, eradicate or correct the body of
special legislation in force before the
constitutional amendment came into
being. Without passing upon any of
these mooted points, the conclusion is
plain that there is an intolerable and
almost unima ginable degree of care
lessness in the framing of recent legis-
Iation. Here is a bill whose purpose
was approved by practically the whole
body of the people. The substitution
of the salary for the fee system is a
contamination for which a long cam
paign has been waged and upon whose
success the people congratulated them
selves. They now find their purpose
defeated by an act which fails, not in
some one particular, but which is so
permeated by crudity, carelessness, ig-
norance and violation of the simplest