The Saint Paul globe., 1898-10-02
JUDGE SEARLE HEARD THEM
ARIES PAID RAMSEY COUNTY
JUDGES
ConstitutiOnality of the Law Cues
toned by COunseI-Rights of
Legislature Insisted Upon.


The proceedings affecting the salaries
Of the judges of the district court were
heard before Judge Searle, Of St. Cloud,
in the district court yesterday, upon
demurrer Of the defendants to the COM
plaint filed by Jacob Steiner, seeking to
restrain the county auditor from draw
ing. warrants for the extra compensa-
tion and enjoining the county treasurer
from paying the same. lnasmuch as
the case concerns each of the Ramsey
county judges, the embarrassment of
one Of them trying his own case was
relieved by referring the matter to
Judge Searle.
The object of the action is to have
declared unconstitutional special law
enacted by the Legislature of 1887, Civ
ing the judges of Ramsey county $1,000
salary from the county fund besides
their regular compensation of $500 per
annum. This provision was made In
view of the extra amount Of work de-
volving upon the judges of this county.
Plaintiff was represented by A. r.
Capehart, while George B. Young, r.
w. M. Cutcheon and T. r. Palmer rep
resented the defendants.
Judge Young contended that the law
Of 1887 is constitutional, on the ground
that the legislature has the power to
apportion taxes according to the bene-
fits to the community wherein the tax
is imposed. Arguing on this line he
Insisted that the act of the Legislature
had determined that Ramsey county
had received the special benefits, and
that the judges were therefore entitled
to the 81, 500 additional compensation.
The legislature he said, was the exclu-
sive judge Of this question Of local
benefits and of the apportionment Of
the tax on the county, and, to sustain
the point, he cited a case tried in New
York on similar lines.
= In reply, A. r. Capehart contended
that the constitution of Minnesota re-
| quired sail taxes to be practically equal
and especially when the money Is de-
voted 4to public purposes. He held that
the district court was a department of
the State government, the same as the
! legislative and executive departments.
| The. judges of the district court, he
maintained are state officers, and as
such tits the duty of the state to pay
t tire salaries and not to impose any part
| Of the compensation on the county.
The constitution, Mr.. Capehart argued,
| in opposition to Judge Young's citation
! of the New York case, conferred al
most unlimited power on the legislature
| to impose taxes, while the constitution
Of Minnesota, he said. limited the power
| IL this particular. Special legislation,
| he argued, is always repugnant, and in
this connection he quoted article of
section 6, Of the Constitution, which
he claimed prohibited the judges of
the state from receiving any other
salary other than that provided for by
the general law of 1881, which fixed the
! compensation at $4,000.
In reply, Mr.. Cutcheon contended that
the duties of the Judges for this dis
trict were so much more onerous and
eXacting than those of a rural district,
and that the legislature was fully en-
powered to provide for additional COM
| Eensation.
Judge Searle took the case under con-
| sideration.