The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-05-17
RULES FOR THE REGENTS
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDS
BOARD OF CONTROL ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
NO CONTROL OVER UNIVERSITY
Ia Reply to Inquiry of Former Gov.
Piylsbury, MIR. Douglass Says
Flaws in Act Are
Fatal.

''The act is. in my judgment,
unconstitutional in so far as 1T applies
in terms to the state university, for the
reason that such subject IS not expressed
in the title"
This extract from the following opinion
of Attorney General Douglas finally set
ties the question as to the limit of power
belonging to the new board of control
and allays the doubts which have been
entertained as to the boards right to ex-
ercise fiscal control over the affairs of
the state university and also the state
normal schools, since the decision applies
equally to all educational institutions IN
the state, according to the attorney gen
erals own statement.
The ruling CT Attorney General Douglas,
given at the request of former Gov. Pills
bury, as a member of the board of reg
ents Of the university, places the trustees
Of the several normal schools IN a rather
peculiar position. Notwithstanding the
bold disparagement between the title and
body of the board of control act, which
was due directly to a blunder of the leg
islators, the normal school directors fail
ing to act with the same elaboration
which prompted the university regents,
rushed in and declared themselves under
the authority Of the board of control
They assumed this right without any
proof as to the validity of the bill as 1t
relates to them upon the ground that the
Legislature meant to make the bill con-
form to it's title, and vice versa. The rul-
ing Of the attorney general will probably
stand, however, as opposed to the arb
trary action of the normal trustees, and
it Is possible the latter may be askedsto
recognize it now that 1T has been given.
The questions of Gov. Pillsbury and
their answers by Attorney General Doug
las are as follows:
First-Is the University Of Minnesota
legally included in the board of control
act?
Second-If you hold that the University
of Minnesota is not legally bound by the
laws. does that fact invalidate the whole
law?
Third-If the University of Minnesota
submits to the provisions of the law.
how and by whom should plans and
pared, and how and by whom contracts
fer supplies and for constructing new
buildings be made?
Fourth-Will you construe sections g.,
18, 10, 90 and "A, and advise what power
the board of regents now have, assuming
that the act legally includes the univer-
sity?
Fifth-If you decide that the UNIVERSE
ty of Minnesota is not legally bound by
the law, could the university cooperate
with the board of control on the lines
laid down in the act, without jeopardiz-
ing or Surrendering any Of the rights OF
the board of regents?
ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
To your first inquiry, I beg to say, that
the act referred to, being chapter E2 of
the General Laws of 1901, is, in my opin-
ion unconstitutional, in so far as it ap-
plies in terms to the University Of Min
nesota, for the reason that such subject
is not expressed in it's title, and therefore
offends the provisions of section q, of
article of the state constitution.
To your second inquiry, I beg to state,
that the rule is established by repeated
decisions Of the court of last resort in
this state, that the inVal1dity of like en-
actments, as applied to one branch Of a
sUbdivided subject, does not render such
acts void as applied to the features eX-
pressed in the title. z,gsEr
Replying to your third inquiry, If the
university submits to the provisions of
the law, in my opinion, plans and specl-
fcattons for new buildings should be
prepared by the architect employed by
the board of control. Under the provi-
sions of section 90, all contracts for the
erection and repair of buildings, and for
the Improvement of grounds or proper
ties of the university, should be entered
into by the chief executive officers of the
institution, subject to the approval and
revision of the board Of control. This
section also provides that all plans and
specifications for such buildings or i'm
provements shall be prepared under the
direction of the board.
In your fourth inquiry you request a
construction Of sections, 8. 49, 10 % and
Al, assuming that the act includes the
university Attention need hardly be
called to the scope of this question. I'm
til various inquiries likely to arise arc
presented. they can hardly be anticipated
in all their bearings, and the sections re-
ferred to construed with that certainty
which would render an answer of any
substantial value. If this contingency
arises, 1 shall take pleasure in consider
ing in detail any question presented, if
l can be of any assistance to you.
Replying to your inquiry, aside from
unofficial consultation with its members
and voluntary compliance with sugges-
tons made, I do not see how the uni
versity authorities can cooperate with
the board OF control. without "surren-
dering the rights" of the board of re-
gents.