The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-03
So Says Supreme Court in Handing
Over Finances of NOrmals to
Board of Control.
Two of the Justices Dissent Vigor-
ousIy From This View Pos
sibIe Effect on University.

been better illustrated than when applied to
Inc constitutional provision which is here in
yoked to defeat one of the most important
measures ever enacted in this state.
e. The decision then takes up the argu-
ment, saying:
To restate the substance of REALTORS claim
compressed into the briefest" formula possible,
it is that charitable Institutions, are not
educational institutions Normal schools are
educational, not charitable, institutions. The
title is, therefore, defective hence so far
as it relates to normal schools the law is
void. This appears plausible, and, standing
alone, without other considerations, it is Of
apparent force and If this were a case for
strict construction Of the constitutional pro-
vision referred to, would be entitled to more
respect than we are inclined to give it, for
tmay De conceded that in popular sense
the words charitable and educational. are
olsungulshable. Were it not so, this con-
troversy would never have arisen But upon
a clear understanding Of the manner in
winch 1T mas been thought absolutely essen
tial to apply this limitation of the organic
law, it seems to us that this is not control
ling, for if the words Of statutory title
may in any sense be held to embrace or
suggest meaning consistent with the SUBJ
stance OF the law, the court should not take
such a narrow view Of it's purpose as to set
aside or repeal any of its provisions for de-
feat IN the title; to do SO would be usurpa-
ton by the court OF legislative powers.
Stress is laid on recent decision by
Justice Brown, in which he says:
In determining the purpose of statute we
must look to all its parts; not mere to its
title.
Another decision by Chief Justice Start
is cited, saying:
II would be absurd, as well as discourteous.
. to &impute to the legislature an Intention to
slrnlt. the meaning of general words used in
the title of the 1acts 50 as to defeat thesexs
pressed purpose of its enactment
The Courts Conclusions.
The court continues:
We have been therefore compelled to con-
clude that the conditions controlling the in.
depreciation of section a. article 4 are not
now open to doubt or discussion, but that
we must adopt the rules established by our
own previous decisions the result Of which
may be fairly summarized as follows: Every
reasonable presumption should be in favor
OF the statute against objection to the con.
| stitutional limitation invoked by relator.
which should be more literally construed than
statues giving to the general words in the
title paramount weight.
That it is rot essential that the best or
even an accurate title be employed if it be
suggestive in any sense of the legislative pur-
pose. That the remedy tot be secured and
mischief avoided is the best test of sufficient
title which is to preventit from being made
cloak or artifce to distract attention from
the substance of the act ieself
The title, if objected to-. should be aided
by resort to the body Of the act to show that
it was not intended by such title to mislead
the legislature or the people nor distract their
Of tic hoI1
Throughout all the decisions i. will ha
found that it Is regard for the law itself
rather than any puerie consideration for the
title which Is made the essential object OF
| judicial anxiety.
| No better test consistent with every sub
| sequent decision on this subject can be made
| than by an answer to the question: Is this
title in every respect $50 foreign to the
purpose of the act some part of it thai, it
| gives no intmation thereof"
1t may seem from cursory glance at the
liberal views which have been adopted to save
| statutes when attacked upon the ground Of
defective title, that little is left of inherent
vitality in the constitutional limitation in
volved, but that this is only a cursory view
| must be apparent upon the reflection that
the limitation was solely to prevent fraud and
deception when determinabe from the evil
dence found in the act and its title when read
together, for nc other evidence is open to
the COURTS
The constitutional provision sounded note
OF warning that has generally protected the
people from legislative juggles, while the
liberal Interpretation since given by this cour.
has saved many wholesome laws that other
wise would have been defeated by narrow
view of it's purpose.
Taking up the definition of the word
Charitable" the court goes into a
lengthy citation to show that in general
sense educational institutions are charita-
bic. There is variance in the use Of
the terms, and the court decides it in.
favor Of the law, holding that the legisla-
ture might have meant to put them under
the head Of charitable. The court says on
this point
Thus we find that lawyer and laymm alike
have defined the words Charity and "char~
table" in different senses. One definition all
ways has had and probably always will have
reference to educational Institutions and
if we nullify a law because definition used
in it's title is not wholly inappropriate nor
foreign to the subject Of the statute, we would
but bubble upon a point Of mere phraseology
to defeat al aw because. in the variance Of
opinion, the best words were not adopted in
such title to indicate and point attention to
it's purpose. To do such grounds would
violate our duty to sustain a law by denying
use of definitions and justly impress upon the
minds of all who respect the value of legal
authority substantial doubt of judicial con-
sstency.
On another point the court says:
The object of the statute, as generally stat
ed in its title, is to create a state board OF
control; If the words of the title had stopped
there, concededy no fault could be found
with its suficiency to include the normal
schools or put their finances under the super
vision of the board of control
Realtors contention. however, rests upon
the claim that the phrase charitable institu-.
ton are words of limitation. II this be so,
and under the canon of construction that the
expression of one thing is the exclusion OF
every other, we would be required to go still
further and inquire how the words "charita-
BILE Institutions were actually used by the
legislature, If we can do so from the body Of
the act itself, and then 70 inquire whsther