The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-03

the general words when read in connection
with the statute had not been given a sense
that controlled even specific words In the
title Whether general words appearing in
the title OF an act were intended to be read
according to their natural and usual mean
ing, or in a restricted sense, the title and
the enacting clause should be read and con-
strued together.
Hence the general words of this title, SAN
: act to create state board of control lex
Guiding limiting words that follow, when
read with the substance of the statute itself
are ample to indicate an intention by the
legislature to include normal schools. the title
must be held sufficient.
The educational institutions referred to are
expressly named in this section: they are, the
state university, the state normal schools,
the state public school, the school for the
deaf and blind. Each of these are to a GER
tain extent educational In character; but 1t
must be conceded that the school for the
deaf and blind, the state public school, are
charitable institutions, though to some eX-
tent educational. We cannot but draw the
necessary inference from this use and refer
enceto these institutions, that the legislature
intended to apply the word charitable to ALL
and that 1t was not the purpose to distinguish
either the state university or the normal
, schools from the other Institutions which are
both educational and charitable.
The majority opinion concludes:
The question before us, We have at.
tempted to show is not whether this statute
has the best title, and is wisely labeled, but
that its title is not so foreign to and unsug-
gestiye of the provisions relating to the nor
NAL schools that must hold that the BODY
enacting the law have been deceived by log
rolling these provisions into it, contrary to
the real purpose Of the legislature.
We are not required to hold. and we do not
hold that normal schools are, as a matter OF
fact, as the term is generally understood,
charitable institutions. The real question
is whether, in applying the reasons repeat
eddy announced by this court to save the
work of the lawmakers from being defeated
by the limitation III the organic law, we
should adopt avoid a reasonably fair con-
struction to give vital force and efficiency to
the legislative will.
e Justice Starts Opinion.
The opinion of Chief Justice Start is
;Eief and the meat is in the following:
The mai3rity opinion, as l understand it.,
holds that tie phrase Charitable instltu-
tions" as used in the title of this act, is
fairly suggestive of the supervision by the
board of control of the finances of the state
normal schools. This conclusion is reached
yinvoking the definition Of the word Char
ity" adopted by courts of equity in applying
the rule or doctrine of charitable uses.
cannot believe that the legislature in adopting
the title of rhe statute in question intended
to reject the usual and popular meaning OF
the word charitable and substitute there
fore the ancient and moss-covered definition
of CHARITY" which the chancery court in
vented centuries ago for the purpose of sus-
tanning charitable uses, and thereby classify
the state rt:mal schools and the state uni
versity rs charitable Institutions On the
contrary it is manifest from a reading OF the
itle that The legislature was not dealing with
definitions, but with admitted prior
classification of the state institutions.
Distinction Existed.
Justice Collins, in his opinion, goes into
the history of the board of control aqt,
to show it's development, and into the
constitution and statutes Of the tsate to
show that educational and charitable in
+; situations have always been separately
. classified By the history of the act he
, shows that the act, first introduced,
did not include educational institutions
at all, but that in the senate they were
attached TO the body of the bill. An at
tempt to insert "educaional' in he title
was defeated in the house before that
time.
He follows, rather tartly, in this Ian
guage:
: To hold that the plain and unambiguous
. title to this Get, readily understood by lawyer
and layman, includes, comprehends or even
suggests that normal schools are the
subjects Of the proposed legislation because
citizens have contributed to the purchase of
lands on which the buildings have been
Is erected have donated to their libraries and
j museums AID that these donations have made
these institutions charitable, will, l believe,
strike the average man a very technical
ana far-fet2hed conclusion.