The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-10-29
NOT 50 BAD AFTER ALL
ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUGLAS
FINDS A WAY OUT OF SCHOOL
PUZZLE
GENERAL LAW FOR CITIES
Have q New Limit Fixed - Court
Has Held in Ramsey County
Jurors Fees Case That Special
Acts Inconsistent With q General
Law subsequently Passed Are


Attorney General Douglas suggests
that there Is still a way out of the school
problem which confronts the city Of st.
Paul. and that Is the passage by the
legislature of q general law fixing
limit Of taxation over which cities Of over
80. 5000 population should go in the matter
of taxation for school purposes. There
is no legal obstacle in the way, Mr..
Douglas contends. the decision of the SUI
preme court in the Ramsey county jury
fees case having put 1t as matter OF
record that a general law may rescind
portions Of special laws inconsistent
Herewith without In terms repeating all
the legislation OF a special character
bearing thereon.
This view Of the legal situation being
presumed, the only obstacle in the way
is the political one-the difficulty Of Sc
curing basis of assessment which would
be acceptable to all three Of the cities
which are in trouble Still, Attorney
General Douglas believes, these will not
be found insurmountable If proper
spirit Of concession is made on each side.
Duluth's finances are said to be in such
shape now that fve-mill levy will be
enough to cover 1t within few years.
at least. Minneapolis already has four
mill levy annually. and that was what
was contemplated by the special mill and
a half school tax law for st. Paul, which
would have given this city total school
taxation Of four mills. Even should the
Duluth people object to limit 80 small
as five mills. 1t Is believed by the attor-
ney general that public sentiment in the
other cities would keep the school boards
within reasonable bounds, even were the
maximum tax permitted larger than the
necessities of the cities at present re-
quired.
The Sullivan case" so-called, being
the mandamus action brought against
then County Auditor Sullivan to compel
the payment Of grand and petit jurors 50
per day, as under the general law of the
state, is in the Sixty-second Minnesota
reports, the decision having been filed by
the supreme court Oct. "a. 1895
Under special law Ramsey county had
been paying jurors living In st. Paul
81 day. those living outside the city
limits $3.50. In the decision the court
said:
AS general laws are extended and
made un1folm throughout the state they
must necessarily cut into and modify
special laws. If the provision of law so
extended in this case Is not based on a.
defective classification, such extension
cannot be regarded as a special law,
even though the incidental effect be to
modify or partly repeal a special law
1.-THE subject here legislated upon, to-
wit. the salaries of grand and petit
jurors of the district courts throughout
the state, constitutes in itself, as dis
tinguished from all other subjects, O.
proper selected one to form the basis Of
general legislation. 1t is true that the
incidental effect is to repeal section 8
Of the special law prescribing the amount
Of fees or salaries of jurors in Ramsey
county, and at the present time this
seems to be the only practical effect Of
the law Of 1895. Yet 1t should not be held
from this alone that the extension of a
general rule or provision Of law so as to
mako 1t uniform throughout the state
is the passing Of a special law. If it
were SO held it would make 1t practical
ly impossible, in most cases, to legislate
on any subjects mentioned in said section
90 Of article Of the constitution without
first digging up, root and all, the special
legislation in the whole state on that
subject. Thus it would be impossible to
pass any general law regulating the af-
fairs Of villages as long as there remained
unfepealed among the statutes of this
state any special law. chartering or regu-
lating the affairs of any village which
special laws might in any manner be
modified or partly repealed by such gen.
eral law. In order to give the general
law validity it would be necessary to re-
peal in toto every such special law; and if
any such special law which might thus
be affected was overlooked, the general
law modifying it would be void simply
because it modified a special law. This
is the principle involved in appellant s
position. Clearly the constitution makers
never intended any such result. What is
meant by the last clause Of section 80
Is that the legislature shall not amend
or modify any special law by any other
special law, unless the law so modified
or amended could now be enacted without
contravening the provisions Of said sec
ton 49, There Is vast difference be-
tween amending or modifying a special
law by another special law and amend
ing or modifying 1t incidentally as re-
suit of extending and making uniform
throughout the state the provisions Of a
general law.