The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-01-04
LONG FIGHT is OVER
StFREHE COURT. IN MAJORITY
OPINION, UPHOLDS BOARD
OF CONTROL
START AND COLLINS DISSENT
Remaining Justices, However, HotI
That scope of Act Clearly In
cIudes State Normal
Schools.

Chapter l22 of the General Laws Of 1901.
which is the board of control law. So
called IS constitutional and Valid an!
therefore the board Of control mas Iae,!
authority to supervise and regulate the
financial affairs, not only u the state
normal schools, but also Of the state
university
Such in effect is the 1acision of the su-
pleme court in the 10 variance acton
recently instituted by the board CT l.0r-
MAJ school managers, in the ione Of rid
ding itself of the authority of the board
OF control, once voluntarily assum "a by its
own resolution
In its action, however, the court is Dy
no means unanimous The decision is
based upon an opinion of a bare majority.
dissenting opinions being filed by both
ChIef Justice Start and Justice. Collins.
The majority opinion is written by JUS
tice Lovely and concurred in by Jus
uces Lewis and Brown. Briefly summed
up II IS to the effect that the constitIl-
uonal provision upon which the normal
board contention was based-that every
law shall embrace but one subject. which
shall be expressed in its title-is to be lib
orally construed, and all doubts resolved
IN favor Of the law: and that the title
also should be literally construed, giving
to its general words par3mo, 1T weigh.
The syllabus of this majority opinion is
as follows:
/. Under claim that a law is invalid
because in conflict with section 81 article
f. state constitution, declaring that every
law shall embrace but one subject which
shall be expressed in its title canons OF
construction have been adopted by TINS
court which may be summarized as fol-
lows:
That every law is presumed to be valid /:
that this provision of the constitution is
to be literally construed, and all doubts
resolved III favor of the law: that the
title should also be literally construed
giving to its general words paramount
weight; that it Is not essential that the
best, or even accurate words in the title
be employed. but that the remedy to be
secured and mischief avoided is the best
test of its suftlciency to prevent such
title from being made a cloak or artifice
to detract attention from the substance
of the act. provided the title be fairly
suggestive and not foreign to the pur-
pose of the statute.
?. That from a consideration of tn
title, chapter 10, Laws 1891 which reads
as follows. An act to create state
board of control, and to provide for the
management and control of the charit-
OF the state, and to make an appronria-
ton therefor and to abolish the state
board of corrections and charities; it NAV
be assumed that the phrase ''charita BE
institutions ir the title under the liberal
rules of construction applicable to such
cases Is within the legal tests provided
hd talrly suggestive of the supervision
by the state board of control Of the
finances of the state normal schools and
not obnoxious to section p article of
the state constitution Lovely. ]
In the opinion Justice Lovely reviews
the case as follows:
Justice LOveIH's Review
Information by the attorney general
upon the relation of j. W. Olsen, mem
bsT of the state normal school board to
test the right of the board of control TO
manage the financial affairs OF the nor
nal schools OF this state as provided in
cnap+er 122, General Laws of 1901
Inc information sets forth that the
board of control is uSurpiT Q the duties of
the normal school beard in making con-
uacLs Tor the regulation OF the finances
Ct these Institutions, contrary to law.
ana thereby lntfUding upon their rights
and franchises
o. the return Of the writ a motion was
H''u' 70 quaSh,> presented at the same
time the Information was considered IN !.
on the issues raised by the REALTORS de
nidfferi but IN the view taken Of the
nnt.ln question, majority Of the court
has reached a conclusion that renders
i unnecessary TO consider such mo-
The board of control answered SET
tins forth matters in which apDear the
grounds relied upon to sustain its author
lily TO supervise the finances of the nor
mai schools demurrer was interposed
wherein the TactS stated in the intOrma
ton are admitted, but as claimed for
relator, are not a Justification of re-
spcndents acts upon the ground that
chapter 122, G. I. 1891. Creating a sta
beard OF control so far as it relates 10
tie normal schools is in violation 81
section p, article 1, OF the state con-
stituuon, which provides that mo law
SnaH embrace more than one subject
which shall be expressed in its title"
o. tins review there should be no
misunderstanding of the precise question
the court is called upon to decide. 4
ntUst be admitted at the outset that tn
views of the policy of the law are no.
before US; it is not for US to say whether
j. is best for the legislature In the in.
te3 eStS of economy to provide for the
control OF the finances Of the state instr
t1'tions and pa: ticularlv of the normal
schools by board of supervision at
tempted by this act. nor is it to bc ques-
toned that sufficient provisions >,rs i'm tn
body of the act to effect that purpose:
bar it is upon its alleged defective 1. e
alone that relator seeks to have il nu.i:-
fec so far as it relates to the five ror-
NAL schools of the state.
Dispute Arises Over Title.
The title reads as follows: An act t.