The Saint Paul globe., 1899-05-05

Operative June L, Is Clearly Spe-
1899 Is Also a Special Law Seek
ing to Amend an Existing Special
Law.
Corporation Attorney Markham in re-
sponse to requests from the board of
water commissioners has prepared opin-
ions relating 10 the validity of the laws
passed by tie legislature in 1897 and 1899
rs to the water frontage tax.
Both laws the corporation attorney
holds are unconstitutional and void The
opinions. if sustained by the court, will
have the effect Of continuing the present
ter-year water frontage tax at least until
the next session Of the legislature. The
law passed by the legislature at the re-
cent session provided that the water
frontage tax should not be assessed,
levied and collected for longer period
than, five years.
The board of water commissioners have
always held that the law of 1897 repeal
ing the entire water frontage tax was un-
constitutional for the reason that it was
special legislation. but no opinion was
ever asked, as the law did not go into
effect until June l. 1895. On the question
of the validity of the 1897 law the cor
poration attorney says:
The legislature may repeal any exist
Ing special or local law, but shall not
amend, extend or modify any of the
same. | think it very clear that the act
11O, Special Laws of 1885, by striking out
the two sections of the act authorizing
the board of water commissioners to as
sess upon each lot In the city of ST.
Paul in front of which water pipes are
laid an annual tax or assessment of 10
cents per lneal foot. The situation is
the same as if the legislature had at
tempted to reenact chapter no. Special
Laws of 1885, with these sections omitted.
have no hesitation in pronouncing
this law within the inhibition of the
section of the constitution above referred
to, and you are therefore advised that
the same Is unconstitutional and void.
AS to the law passed at the recent ses-
sion of the legislature, the opinion of the
corporation attorney says in part:
The question is: Is this an act of 1899,
although general in form, in fact a spe-
cial law, an attempt to amend existing
special laws comforting upon the city
OF St. Paul the power to levy and collect,
annually, frontage tax of 10 cents per
Hneal foot on each lot in front Of which
the city shall have laid its water mains? /?
1t is clear, from the language of the act,
that 1t is exceedingly restricted in It's
operation. 1t assumes that thers has
been previous legislation authorizing
cities of this state to levy an annual
frontage tax of so much a lineai foot
for the purpose of defraying the cost
of laying and extending its water mains.
No city has the right to levy a frontage
tax unless the right is specifically
granted to 1t by the legislature and the
act In question is therefore necessarily
limited in its operation to those cities
in the state which have heretofore been
expressly authorized not only to levy a
frontage tax, but to levy it annually
and at a certain rate per lineal foot and
for the purpose of defraying the ex-
pense of laying and extending it's water
mains The city of st, Paul IS the only
city in the state which has been au-
thorized to levy and collect an annual
frontage tax in such manner as to bring
II within. the operation of this law. While
other cities are authorized to levy a
frontage taxg they are not authorized to
do so annually, and there are other
points Of difference between the laws
and the law under which the city OF St
Paul ulaoperates, that the act of 1899 would
not apply to them. Furthermore, the
act is not framed so as to be operative
upon any city other than the city OF St;
Paul in the future There is no ger eral
law authorfzing cities to levy a frontage
tax, and each of the cities of the state
possessing this power, possesses it only
by.svirtue of some special law partfcus
lafR applicable to such city. S Not only
only tOst4e. city Of ST. Paul at the dsesS pyes,
ent time but it Is so framed that it can
newer apply to any other city, without
dutrIfier tt Ter. leg1slation granting to such other
city the right to levy an annual frontage
tax at so much per ineal foot, without
specifying the number of years for which
S suen otner city may levy such tax. In
further legislation, it would be impossi-
BILE for the act of 1899 to apply either in
the present or in the future to any other
city than the city of st. Paul
Inc act in question is open to the fur
-enera objection that it undertakes to
amend aM nn7i and IN modify the existing special
frontage tax in this city. It has no
other ERECT and no other purpose. Under
}, me PROVISIONS of the constitution the
legislature has no power to amend, ex-
{end or modify any special or local law,
put may repeal the same at its pleasure
Onoer the provisions Of chapter no,
special laws of 1885, the city has the right
TO levy and collect this annual frontage
tax at lO cents per lineal foot for an
llndeterm1nate period The act in ques-
tlon undertakes to limit this right to q
period OF five years from and after the
nrst levy of such tax or assessment.
mus amending the special law conferring
II Is true that a general law of uniform
operation throughout the state does not
contraVene any of the provisions of the
constitution merely because it incidentalo
" modlneS or amends a special law hut
the act In question, although general in
d3rnn' having no application in any other
operate upon the peculiar conditions ex.
listing in the city of ST. Paul by force
or the special legislation pertaining 70
Ihls city, and is therefore special in fact
II Is not important that the legislation
is general in form. The character of an
act as general or special, depends upon
us substance. 1t may be special in fact
although general in form, and it NAV he
general in fact, although special in form
The legislature having no power bv III.
rect, special legislation to amend Or
moqlfy the previous special legislation
authorlz1ng the levy and collection Of
thlS TAX, has no power to do so Indirectly
uhoer the guise of an act which. though
general IN form is special in its effect
ana was intended and designed to ac
complish such purpose
conclude that chapter 81. snecia1 1sus
or 1872 Is repugnant to the provisions of
the constitution to which attention has
void - anu
The opinions will be considered nv tho
poard at an adjourned meeting today
Secretary Caulfield, who had been fnr-
nlshed with a copy Of the opinions said
the declaring of the laws unconstitutional
would allow the old law of 1895 to re-
main in force and the frontage tax col
lected for a period Of ten years. Had
the law of 1899 become operative the re-
-celpts Of the board would have been de-
creased $l3S,OeO in the next three years.
rms would have resulted IN an Increase
IN the present water rates so that the
money necessary to lay new mains. If
ordered by the board and for current ex-
penses could be secured.