The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-06-10
goes more into detail. Justice Mitchell
says:
TE,XT on THE OpINION


The only question: presented is whether
the act is constitutional.
The court has so often been over the
whole subject of classification that it is
unnecessary to do more than restate two
fundamental rules.
First-The basis of classification cannot
be arbitrary or illuSive, but must be
founded upon a substantial distinction;
having reference to the subject matter
of legislation, between the objects or
places embraced in the subject of legisla
ton and those excluded as suggests the
necessity or propriety of different legis-
lation for the two, In respect to the mat
ter which is the subject of legislation.
Second-The act must include. and act
uniformly upon all of the class, that is
all whose conditions and wants render
such legislation equally appropriate to
them as a class
Judging from recent legislation in this
state, 1t would seem that the impression
is prevalent that because classification
on the bases of population may be proper
for the purpose of legislation upon GER
tain subjects, therefore any classification
on the basis of population is appropriate
for the purposes of legislation on any
subject. The sooner the minds of legisla-
tors and others are disabused of this
erroneous impression the better, for I'M
der any such rule the provisions of the
would become wholly nugatory. If 1t is
permissible to adopt for any and all pur-
poses a classification founded upon any
and every arbitrary and illusive basis of
population, we might have as many acts,
general In form but special in fact as
there are counties, cities, villages, town
ships, wards and school districts in the
state.
1t ought to be apparent to any one on
a moments reflection that, under the
rules above stated, classification on the
basis of popula ion may be ap2ro. ate Tor
one purpose and not for another; that
is, for legislation upon one subject and
not for legislation upon another. For
example, classification of counties or
cities on the basis of population might
be proper, as was held in Anderson VS..
Sullivan, for the purpose of fixing the
inasmuch as the extent of their duties
and labors presumably bear some rela-
ton to the population of their respective
on any such basis for the purpose of fix
ing the time at which elections should be
held to elect such officers would be as
arbitrary as If it had been based upon the
initial letter of the counties or cities. Or
again, where the subject of the legislation
is such that the classification by popula-
tlon would be proper particular basis
might be incomplete because 1t did not in
clude within the class all objects or places
similarly situated; that is, whose condi-
tons render such legislation appropriate
This is the fatal defect in the act under
consideration.
The essential provision of this act and
the. one which was designed to differ
entiate counties feeling within the purview
is the. one providing for one assessor for
the whole county, Instead of one for each
township, city and village, as provided
in the existing general laws All other
provisions of the act are merely incidental
or auxiliary to this. We are not prepared
to say that population might not be a
counties into two classes-one in which
there should be but one assessor and the
other in which there should be an assessor
for each municipal division of the county
If such basis of classification would be
proper upon such subject it must be
because very populous counties usually
contain large amount of urban as well
as suburban and rural property, the
values Of which. according to area, differ
greatly, depending upon location and the
nature of improvements, and, in order to
1t all assessed by one officer, But the
more ,.populous the county, the more
strongly this reason would apply. If 1t
applies to counties whose population Is
between 100000 and 1850 1t applies with
still greater force to counties of more
than 1S5, 600.
That this act was intended to apply onlv
TO Ramsey county could not be clearer If
the act had in express terms so stated. =
In view of what has been said. 1t be-
comes unnecessary to consider section
or the act (the very one under which Rttt
obtained his appointment, except to saw
that IN any event 1t would be invalid, for
the reason. that by its very terms 1t could
never apply to any county which. might
come into the class subsequent to the an
nual election In November 1900. IT fol-
lows that-th reIator (Seng) Is entitled to
etiiu tlldI the respondent (Rttt)
is unlawfully in possession of it. Lei
judgment of custer be issued
WHERE IS BROADWAY BRIDGE?
The effect of the decision giving the
city of st. Paul the right to transfer, from
the fund for the Broadway bridge what
is Ieft therein to the bridge repair fund
comes within the same question Indeed.
1T had already been. raised, and in view
of the dubious position of the supreme
court on the question, there is no doubt
but that this will be carried right to the
same tribunal for exact and definite de-
termination. The word dubious above
is not the G o. b e IS adjective, but that
OF an attorney prominent In the state.
who, while declining to be quoted, pointed
Continued ON Third Page.