The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-10-28
WAIT FOR A PETITION
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES NOT
LIKELY TO ACT IN CHARTER
NATTER WITHOUT
COUNCILS POSITION CLEAR
law of 1899 Does Not Give 1t Any
More Authority in the Premises
Than Any Other BOdy-Clause
That Was In the Law of 1898
Has Been Dropped in the New
Law.

The reason why Mayor Kiefer did not
call a special session of the common
council, as asked by the board of educa-
ton to pass an ordinance requesting
the Judges of the district court to ap-
point a charter commission becomes ap-
parent when chapter 351 of the General
Laws of 1899 Is casually read.
The law Of 1895, under which 1t was
provided that charter commission could
be appointed for the drafting Of char
ter allowed the judges of the district
court to appoint such commission upon
the presentation Of an ordinance passed
by the common council. Chapter 3ol OF
the laws of 1899, however. says nothing
about an ordinance being passed by the
council, and as the chapter repeats the
one of 1895 the passing of an ordinance
by the council would have no more au-
thority so far as the appointment by
the judges of a commission is concerned
than though the Lincoln club had passed
a resolution to the same effect.
The board of education, when 1t formu-
lated the resolution which was presented
to Mayor Kiefer, evidently had carefully
read the law of 1895, but not the one
passed by the last legislature. The SEE
ton relating to the appointment of
charter commission in the 1899 laws reads
as follows:
"The judge or judges of the district
court of the judicial district in which
such city or village is situated may in his
or their discretion, upon the presentation
of a petition signed by at least ten QO)
per cent of the legal voters thereof, ac-
cording to the returns of the next pre-
ceding election in such city or village,
requesting such action, or whenever said
judge or judges shall deem it advi able
for the best interests Of such city or
village appoint a board OF fifteen Q5)
freeholders who shall be and for the past
five O. years shall have been qualified
voters of such city or village"
The law Of 1895 and also of 1899 dis
tinctly provides, however, that the judges
Of the district court may in their dis
erection and whenever they deem it adj
visable for the best interests Of the city
or village appoint a commission. It was
suggested by a number of those inter
ested in the school fund shortage that
perhaps the judges of the district court
might appoint a commission without re-
quiring the presentation of a petition
signed by 10 per cent of the legal voters.
The fact that five of the six judges of
the court in this judicial district had held
the law valid which allowed an addi-
tional levy for school purposes and the
further fact that the supreme court had
reversed the decision was Of itself suf
fcient to acquaint the judges that it was
to and for the best interests of the city
to appoint a charter commission At
least that was the argument advanced
by those who are taking more than a
passing interest in the school fund mat
ter.
A Gil o reporter interviewed four Of
the six judges of the district court yes
terday as to the possibility of the ap-
pointment of a charter commission by
them without the petition Of the required
legal voters of the city.
Judge Brill said he had been so busy
with cases being tried before him that
he had not even read the new law relating
to the manner Of appointing the charter
commission. There had been no confer
ence among the judges in relation to
the question
Judge Jaggard had heard nothing about
the appointment of commission except
what he had noticed in the papers and
had given the question no attention. He
had not read the new law in relation to
the appointment of tne commission
Judge Lewis was equally at sea as to
the new law. lie reCOIIecLeQ that the
law of 1895 provided for the appointment
Of a commission upon the passage of an
ordinance by the common council. Wheth-
er this had been amended or repealed
by the law of 1899 he did not know Be-
ing shown the section quoted above Judge
Lewis said he thought 1t was possible
for the judges to appoint the commission
without waiting for a petition signed by
the voters He had however, not talk
ed with any of the other members Of the
bench and could say nothing as to their
views on the question.
Judge Bum said he was not familiar
with the law of 1899, but speaking for
himself he did not think it wise for the
judges Of the district court to take upon
themselves the appointment of a char
ter commission. The power had been
delegated to the bench under the law
passed by the legislature but it was not
judicial action. The law in this re-
spect bad not been, as he understood it,
changed from that passed in 1885, aud
the judges at that time did not consider
1t advisable to appoint the commission
unless requested to.
Corporation Attorney Markham said
there was no doubt but that the Judges of
the court had the power under the law
to appoint the commission without a pc
tition, but he doubted If the Judges would
ia Ike any such action without the request
being made by some organization or BODY
of citizens.