The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-08-02
CHARTER IS HELD VALID.
SUPREME COURT SAYS ST. Paul .
NEW PAPER IS LEGAL
AND JUST
GETcHELL IS THROWN OUT
Chief of Police O'Connor Is without
Rival Now, and GetcheH's.
Subservfents Go Out
With Him.

| Justice Brown and handed down yester-
day, sustaining the validity of the new
St Paul city charter.
Far-reaching in its effect is the dispo-
sition of the Getcheu quo warranto pro-
ceedings as the order of the court quash-
es the writ, secured by the former police
| officials in the lower court and sustains
the constitutionality Of the charter with
out qualification. The court gives the
act under which the charter was framed
broad construction as to it's applica-
ton to ST. PauPs charter and the same
will cover the Duluth city charter, framed
under the same law and under very SINH
lar circumstances.
AS for Getchen and Mcintyre, they
never had any standing under the new
charter, and the associate justice says
so in just so many words in his opinion.
In effect the decision makes legal the
police commission and all its proceedings
since organization, as well as action taken
by other municipal boards under the
new instrument, including the school
board. Aside from the police commits
sion, the school board is perhaps the
more directly interested, as lack of funds
available under the old charter is be-
W NAAO 1lGW CIldTI6T RlVlQg. the
schools revenue adequate to meet all de-
mands.
Inc whole court participated in the de-
cis.on, the opinion, written by Justice
Brown being as follows:
quo Warranto proceedings to determine
the right of respondent to the office of
chief of police of the city of St Paul.
Ine important question In the case is the
const1tutionality of chapter 351, laws 1899.
Ine same pelng an at to authorize cities
ana villages to frame their own charters
pursuant to this act, due proceedings
were had by the city of st. Paul q
charter framed and adopted as provided
therepy, under provisions of which re-
Spondent was appointed chief of police
Relator held the office at the time of
the adoption of the new charter, and the
appointment of respondent disputes and
contests the right of the latter to the Of
nee on the ground that the act of The
legislature aforesaid is unconstitutional
ana void, In consequence of which the
new charter Is a nulfity. We come di-
| rectly to the main question without fur
ther statement as to the rights of the
| respective parties to the office in question.
| Chapter S51, laws 1885, pursuant to which
the new charter of st. Paul was framed,
was passed and enacted under section 36
or article 4 of the constitution of the
state, as amended in 1898 The relator
assa1ls the constitutionality of the act of
| the legislature on two grounds
L. That 1t is unconstitutional and void
because made to apply to cities in exist
ence when the constitutional amendTnent
was adopted only.
2. That it is void because II fai1s -
provide general limits within which to
frame charters authorized thereby.
The section of the constitution, SO far
as appncabie to REALTORS first objection,
reads as follows:
Sec IS. Any city or village In this
state may frame a charter for its own
government as a city consistent with and
lows: - "
The act Of the legislature, SO far as.
here pertinent. reads:
Sec. 1 Any city. Incorporated prior to
the adoption of the constitutional amend
ment allowing cities already incorpor-
ated, and villages desiring to be incor-
porated as cities, to frame their own
ctdl 'eLs as clties ana any village in the
state OF Minnesota desiring to be incorpo-
rated as a city, may frame a charter for
ats own government as a city as herein
after provided.
this act is void because limited and re.
str1cted to cities Incorporated prior tO
the constitutional amendment, when, as
they claim, the constitution applies to all
cities whenever Incorporated If this
contention is sound the charter must fall
1t Is sound If we read and construe sec.
| 80 OF the constitution literally. Its Ian
| guage IS that all cities may frame char
ters, while the act of the legislature pro
VideS that all cities Incorporated prior TO
given date may do so. Unless this linn
ANeeSAOAA 10 NelAI dLl6Q dlQ 1QSllIi6Q by a
proper construction of the constitution,
the act must be declared void as special
IeSisla ton Respondent contends that
the title to the act of the legislature pro-
posing and submitting sec. &c to the Deo-
pie as constitutional amendment NAV
be referred to in determining the intent
or the legislature and of the people in
adopting the amendment The tlfIe of
the act proposing the amendment to the
constitution reads as follows:
An act proposing an amendment to sec
ton 80 of article of the constitution of
the state of Minnesota, allowing cities
already incorporated and villages deslr-
ing to be Incorporated as cities, and cIas-
styling cities for the purpose of general
legislation The body of the act, the
section of the constitution proposed to be
amended, provides that any city or vii
lage may frame a charter for its own
government and the authority there con-
ferred is not confined or limited to those
already incorporated
That the amended constitution was in
tended to apply to cities having an incor-
porated existence at the time Of its adop-
ton seems very clear to us. In deter
mining the intent of the amendement,
reference may be had to the conditions
and surroundings the government of mu-
nicipalities, and the history of general
legislation. with respect thereto. Holy
Trinity Church V. u S.. 143 U. S. 45S:
United States " R. R. Co, 81 U. S. 70;
constitutional amendment in 1891, speciaf
legislation as to cities and villages was
wholly prohibited. Thereafter ali incor-
porated cities and villages were limited
IN the conduct and management of mu-
; ntcipal affairs to the power and authority
| therefore contained in and conferred by
their charters, to which no amendments
CIR additions could be made The result
of this was to hamper and embarrass
such cities and villages in the conduct of
! their affairs; exigencies and new condi-
tons arose which demanded and required
the exercise of greater power than was
| conferred upon them. but the Iegis allure
was powerless to act, except, perhaps
| by general legislation. which was imprac-
ticaole because of the varied interests
duties and RESPONSIBILITIES of different Gift
les. The constitution prohibited granting
any further privileges to such cities
ana. as consequence. the administration
or public offices thus became very much
enbarrassed and involved To obyia+e
all these difficulties. and to place such
cities on broader basis. and in a prom
os1tion prenared to meet and deal with
Eancement and growth, it was
deemed wise and advisable to author
lze them to frame and adopt their
own charters. Cities in existence 81
this time Were for the most part moor
porated by special charters, and by rea
son OF the constitutional amendment OF
1881, We're absolutely HELPLESS when con-
fronted with new conditions requiring tha
exercise of additional power, and no
doubt the legislature had this in mind
and intended the amendment of 1898 to
privilege to. all cities whether then or
thereafter to be Incorporated Under
this construction There is but little DIFF
hcuity to be apprehended from the sug-
geSuon that cities NAV hereafter he Gre
ated under the general laws of the STATE
and VIII be without remedy under tbis
Jaw because not incorporated before Its
p pte;sa3st, As rule Incorporated mu-
lagos. and as they grow in popI1Ia tion
ana importance changed conditions and