The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-10-24
r. THIS ID TIM TRADE MARK
%&&&SM which is on every paekags q
DG0L[) MEDAL FLOUR
NtSEApSI the best and most extensively
sold Flour in the world.

to adopt such a sweeping, and ironclad
constitutional prohibition of special legis-
lation as to cities in state where they
many years under diverse special char
ters thus creating a frequent necessity
for special and local remedial legislation,
But this was matter for the people ana
not for the courts.
Justice Collins adds this opinion:
/ concur in the result reached, but pre-
fer to place my concurrence on tne
ground adopted by Mr.. Justice Mitchell:
am of the opinion that the necessary
effect" and the manifest intent OF the
act referred to by Justice Mitchell is
made more apparent when we find that
ter 40 the same legislature passed and the
governor approved another act, chapter
II, Laws of 1882 which was an exact dupli-
{ Boo h5 in a sseon tha for
city and the word "district' for city"
The intention was to adopt the diverse
provisions Of existing special leslSla1lon
school purposes were levied and certified
by city councils or by boards, OF educa-
ton Independent of the council.
Chief Justice Start dissents The dis
senting opinion says:
I dissent. The objections urged
against the constitutionality of chapter
40, Laws 1899, rest, it seems to me, upon
the untenable assumption that 1t IS
based upon existing special laws and re-
quires for it's enforcement their aid. The
act grants to all cities of a given class
the power to raise annually by taXatlol
by existing laws not exceeding mill and
a half on each dollar in the assessed
valuation of the taxable property OF
such city for. school purposes ana 70 ap.
Is special legislation and therefore uncons
stitutional because in order to ascertain
the maximum limit Of taxation for school
purposes for any city of the class it is
To
regulating the public schools in such cities
and that it in effect amends the char
ter of such city by increasing the maxi
mum limit of taxation for school pur-
poses. But why is it necessary to as
certain such maximum limit in order to
levy this particular tax? There is moth
creases or diminishes the powers Of the
cities under their respective charters. The
power granted to each city OF the class
is to raise an amount equal to a mill and
one-half tax in addition to that author
lied by existing laws, without reference
to them, hence any maximum limit in
existing special laws Is immaterial The
power granted to raise by taxation the
extra or additional amount Is unqualf-'
fled
Again, it is urged that because the
maximum limitation Of taxation for
school purposes in the several charters
Of the cities is not the same the opera
ton of the law is not uniform and its
effect is to preserve and peTpetuate the
differences in the provisions Of the re
spective charters of the cities resulting
in the lack OF. uniformity existed before
the law in question Was enacted. II the
law be repealed, or held to be invalid.
the supposed evil of diverse charter pro-
visions continues. 1t Is also urged that
the law is unconstitutional because, it
necessarily adopts and extends existing
special legislation, and that the law can
not be executed without recourse to the
diverse provisions of the several city
This IS the serious and doubtful ques-
ton in this case. But the doubt must
be solved in favor of the act, and if it is
fairly susceptible of two constructions
tain it. p
The act herein questioned may be fair,
ly construed as complete in itself. 1t iss'
an independent and separate grant Of
plieation for the execution of the power.
True, 1t does not in terms designate the
officers who are to execute the power, or
the mode thereof, but the grant by i'm.
plication carries with it everything. neces-
sary to make it effective, or as the dis
trict court aptly expressed 1t, The power
to levy the tax" t is suggested. in ef,
feet, blythe majority Of the court, that
the act adopted diverse provisions of the
existing special legislation contained in
Of carrying the grant of power into eff
feet That is, 1t was the intention
of the legislature. to adopt an abortlye
method Of executing the power aih e,dsn
the decision Of the case of Alexander
VS. City Of Duluth, in which it was eX-
pressedly declared that the adoption o.
such method was unconstitutional. l
am unwilling to impute to the law-mak-
ing power such faulty from the mere
fact that the law is silent as to how
and by whom the grant is to be executed.
It must be assumed that the legislature
intended that the law should be executed
in a way that would make its Provisions
valid, and | see no practical d1ft1cultles
in executing the power granted without
invoking the aid of special and diverse
charter provisions. The constitutional
amendment forbidding special legislation
as to cities recognizes continuance of
their corporate existence under special
charters for limited time at least. and
expressly authorizes the passage CT gem
eral laws. with reference, to them, pro
vided such laws are uniform in their
operation. Any general law enacted pl1r-
suant to such express provisions of the
constitution must OF necessity recognize
the corporate existence Of said cities. al
though they were created and continue to
exist by virtue Of special and diverse
charters. Such law would not be I'M
constitutional, because it by implication
adopted so much of this special charter
as gave and continued to such cities their
corporate existence.
beyond this 1t recognizes the cities as
municipal corporations and confers upon
them as such-the power to levy this tax
The execution of this power in the 40.
act devolves upon the representative
body of the corporations the common
council, no matter. what officer or board
may be authorized by their charters to
levy taxes for school purposes. The
council must determine the amount to be-
raised under the act; this is, levy the tax.
and certify it's action, or cause 1T to be
done by it's recording officer to the coun-
ty auditor, pursuant to G. S. 1894, section
1857, who must extend the tax. II such
be the correct construction of this. act
within the prohibition of the constitu-
ton and does not require for its enforce
ment their aid, ana therefore it Is
constitutional. Start, e. j.