The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-02-01
TWO CITIES AWAIT IT
ON SPECIAL SCHOOL
TAX LAW
TWO LAWS ARE VERY SIMILAR
The Fate of Which Is Involved in
the Hearing of Yesterday, One
Applying In Terms to Minneapolis,
While the Other Involves the
Paul.

Last Of the cases to be submitted to the
supreme court at it's October term, which
ex rel. the Minneapolis board of educa-
ton, to compel County Auditor Minor,
Of Hennepin county, to extend upon the
tax rolls of the county a special tax of
nine-tenths of a mill for school purposes,
which was authorized under an act Of
the last legislature, legally known as
chapter r. of the Laws of 1899.
The case is one of almost as much in
terest in st. Paul as In Minneapolis by
reason of the fact that the defense of
the county auditor rests, chiefly, if not
wholly, on the fact that in December
last, the supreme court decided uncon-
stitutional chapter 40, substantially SIM
liar to this act, except that 1t applied
to St Paul, while chapter Il applies to
Minneapolis.
The Minneapolis school board, however,
declines to admit the identity in form and
operation of the two statutes, and also
indicates a disposition to trust to
change in sentiment on the part of the
supreme court, the personnel of which
has changed since the previous decision,
in which it seems decided by the fact
that Judge Elliott, of Inc Hennepin dis
trict court, has sustained the Minneapolis
law since the supreme court decision, and
in the fact of illusions to the Mime
apolis law therein contained which indi-
Gated that had 1t come before the SUI
preme court with the st. Paul law, it
ct, Ia, in
valid. City Attorney Healey, of Mime
apolis, however, for the school board of
that city, takes up the decision in the
johnson case, which involved the st.
Paul act, as follows:
Admitting that there is a very great
similarity between the two statutes, yet
respondent respectfully submits that this
is not a case to which the doctrine (of
stare decisisl should be applied without
question, especially if 1t should appear
that there is ground for serious doubt as
to the correctness of that former decis-
ion. This statement does not initiate
against the doctrine that when propo-
sition has once been decided by a court
of last resort, that that decision should
form a precedent which should not or
dinarily be departed from, and never for
slight grounds. But courts sometimes
find 1t necessary to overrule decisions
which have been made contrary to prin.-
ciple or through Misrepresentation or lnls-
take. 1t will be admitted that it should
require great public interests to induce
q court to depart from former dccis-
ion, and where there has been a series or
decisions settling a question of law,
and change would seriously affect busi-
ness interests established under the eX-
listing law, the doctrine of stare decisis
should be followed. But where there
has been but single decision, and that,
too, by a. divided court, and no property
rights have been established in the mean
time, the doctrine of stare decisis ought
not to be applied so as to prevent re-
consideration If necessary, of a former
decision"
Mr.. Healey quotes Chandler Kent:
when rule has once been deliberately
adopted and declared, it ought not to be
disturbed unless by court of appeal or
review, and never by the same court ex-
cept for very cogent reasons and upon
clear manifestation of error =
But 1 wish not to be understood to press
too strongly the doctrine of stare decisis
when / recollect that there are more
than 1000 cases in English and American
books and reports which have been over
ruled, doubted, or limited In their appli-
cation 1t is probable that the record Of
many of the reports in this country are