The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-08-02

the act. that some locality may at some
oilne IA IA the future come into existence
as city under the general laws.
In view of all these considerations, and
construlng the constitution in this light,
a ILd IN connection with the title appended
thereto py the legislature, we have no
hesitation in holding that the intention
OF the legislature and of the people in
aooptlng and ratifying 1t. was to limit the
application Of the amended constitution
to Incorporated cities then in existence.
1t Is true that no titleSis required to a.
proposed Observation-Disclosures. Such
an ane mo may be proposed to the
people by Joint resolution of the leg
l54. But such title may be looked to
i heve 41 Tor the purpose Of ascertain
versaI rule and APPLIES where no title is
required; Wilson, Y. 7spaIding. 10 Fed
~ w., y: s 30 " Fisher. Crach 1853; Clark Y;
Wbsaf 4; y Nd; 2SS Us Palmer, g
Mass a1s fo gi g that the eua act l iS
question IS not intvoIation of the consti-
tuition but in strict accord Herewith.
Realtors second. contention is that the
act IS void because no limits are pre-
| seribed within which 10 frame the char
the constitution &c in51 question provides
that Before any city shall incorporate
under this act the legislature shall pre-
SCRIBE by general law limits within which
such charters may be framed" The con-
tent1on Is that the provision is mandatory
| and requires the legislature to prescribe
general and uniform limits or a broad
chartef may relate, prescribing in detail
the powers and authority within which
the charter must be framed. We cannot
! concur IN this view. To adopt it would
hulHIy the purposes intended to be sub
served and secured by the constitution.
pfoad framework for each topic" per-
tanning to a city ~oharter would in itself
pc charter and@render the act of the
CITY III framing n0fhinO than
adopting therefor the legislative grant of
power, and instead of exercising the right
10 frame their own. charter cities
Wouid De confined TO what the Legislature
saw sd" NJ TO grant them and nothing more.
me general power and authority to frame
ciIy charters is granted by the constitu-
extends to all powers properly belonging
70 the government Of municipalities, and
me requirement that the legislature
shau prescribe limits within which such
cndrter may De framed must not be con-
SLued TO mean limits beyond which the
cnd[ler may not go. In other words 1t
IS mus MADE the duty of the legislature
TO provide such general limitations and
restrictions as that body may deem ex-
pedient and proper. No other interpreta-
tion can pc placed on this provision con
slstent with the plain and obvious pur-
pose and Intent Of the legislature and
people adopting the constitutional amend
Inent or which it is a part. In obedience
V WiIh the requirements of the constitution
pOTdtOQ III Tie act IN
cues uon certain specified limitations
ana restrictions upon certain subjects
ana II Is not for the court to say that
S 9hET ana havd lufther limits or restrictions
SuInc1ent compliance with the constitil-
tion in this respect ~
II follows thatdthe act is not open to
the. objections made against it and is
valid and CONSTITUTIONAL Other fuilestIbns
urged oy counselI do not require further
mention 81 5Sg , - 1
Inere is no doubt as to the right of the
respondent TO the office in question He
Was Was appointed theEeto by the board of po-
nee commissioners created by the new
cll IA Ter, and has5duly qualified. Section
oIidt al oIneers. employees and members
Oh the police f0rce and department of
sad city of ST. Radl, at the time when
S siliS pec e eHeStlVe, shall continue to
SAD board, and an orders rules and regu
iatlons applicable to the police force and
department., and I'M force at said time,
snail continue in force until otherwise
provided by said board ReIafor con-
eenqs that by the adoption of the new
-charter he became. san{officer thereunder
anu. coglq only be removed in the man
ner ana Tor the reasons specified therein
Tor the removal ofaofficers This conten
tIon Is not sound. Hewas not an officer
~ te the new charter. but was subject
he III 'i oe rules ana regulations applicable to
ms once under the old charter. and I'M
DER the provisions Of the new charter
above quoted. section 16 of chapter %, lie
could De superseded by, the appointment
OF another person by the police board
ana has no right to insist that he e.ce11Id.
De removed for cause only. -
Writ Quashed,
The syllabus of the decision ts,
!: section Sc, article a of the state CON
sttution; as amended in 1898, Construed
ana neld to apply to Incorporated cities
IN existence at the time of its adontion
ana no nor TO cities to be hereafter fncor-
Although a title to an act Of the leg
lsiature proposing an amendment to the
nolty of the act. nevertheless, the same
may De looked. to, dwhen constituting and
interpreting a section of the constitution
to which it relates ~ - :.
chapter 351, General Laws Of 1899. held
valid and constitutional. = .
4. Inc provisions of section SO. article
OF the constitution, requiring the legisz
la 3t!e 10 prescribe limits within which
cues. may frame their own charters is
sufficiently complied with when the leg.
lslature prescT1bes and imposes In that
behalf such restrictions and Limitations
as are deemed by that body expedfent
and proper. 1t Is not necessary for fhe
legislature to prescribe. a general frame-
work for the city charter.
D. The city charter of the civ of ST
Paul framed undeP- an62pursuant to chan
by, the qualified voters Of such city. is
valid and became upon such adoption.
the law for the government Of such citv
b: Held furtheryo that relator is. not en-
titled to the office ofsehief of police of
said city, having been Superseded by the
appointment ofathe respondent under the
provisions of such new charter. =.