The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-04-18
Asserts Murphy is Illegally
Member Of the Board of
Public Works
DREARY POLITICAL PLAY
Has a Queer LOOphoIe Through
Which He Tries to Poke the Dix
Parallel-MichaeI Pokes Fun
at the Strained Opinion.

1t pains him exceedingly to say so, but
First Assistant Corporation Attorney
Griggs regrets to report that former
Aid. Edward Murphy is illegally holding
once as member of the board of public
works.
10 be brief, he acknowledges vaguely
the law which permitted Mr.. Murphy to
vacate an aldermanship for a seat on the
board OF public works, but he holds that
Mr.. Murphy was an alderman before the
law became effective, and therefore could
not take advantage of its provision until
his legislative connection with the city
had run its limit.
Mr.. Griggs' belief regarding Mr..
Murphy's official connection with St Paul
was made the basis of an opinion hand
ed down yesterday and is now in pos
session of Comptroller McCardy, at whose
request it was written. 1t is as follows:
Mr.. Griggs' Opinion.
I'm reply to your inquiry to this de-
to whether. since the adoption of the
charter, there has been any legislative
action which modifies, in any manner,
the provisions Of section 6 of chapter 2
of that instrument. to which you then
drew our attention, and if so, the eff
fects thereof L beg to submit the fol-
lowing views:
Attention should be given, perhaps to
vision in question. Section of chapter
46 of the Special Laws for 1887, which
was amendatory of the provisions of the
charter of 1874, as they had been pre-
vicUsly amended by chapter Sc of the
Special Laws for 1876, provided that mo
alderman elected under this act shall.
during his term of office, hold any other
city, county or state office of profit or
trust" At the time that the common
council was changed from a body com
posed of but single chamber to one
composed of two, as at present, an as
sembly and board of aldermen. the leg
islature provided, in chapter of the
Special Laws of 1891. that no member
of either of said bodies shall hold any
other office under the city government of
said city They might, however, so far
as this provision was concerned become
app0intive county or state officers, or
they might become qualified to hold other
appointive city offices by res gnation; the
provision was unconstitutional as applied
to elective offices.
Admits Lameness of Provisions.
''Thc purpose of these provisions there
can be no doubt lame as they were,
was that ascribed by the supreme court
in the case of State ex rel. VS.. Sutton,
60 Mimi, HI to a somewhat similar pro-
vision in the state constitution. Section
9 OF article of that instrument pro-
vides that no senator of representative
shall. during the time for which he is
elected, hold any office under the author
of Minnesota, and the court said: 'EVi-
IDENTIFY it was the intention of the franz
ers of the constitution, by the language
used, to prevent, as far as possible, traf-
ticking in public Offices This is peculiar
ly true of municipal offices, which have
to do so intimately with the merest de-
tail IN the life and property interests
Of every citizen and when the opportuni-
ties for trafficking in o18ces are well nigh
ineXhauStible.
while the charter provisions applica-
BILE to this city in this respect were those
to which I have already referred, the
legislature of 1897, by chapter 131 of the
General Laws of that year provided:
Tt shall be unlawful for any person here
offices. that is to say, the Office of coun-
elm an, assemblyman or alderman, in any
city. rr the office Of county commission
er III any county in this state to hold
any Other office in such city or county
during the term for which he was elect
ed or appointed except an Office elective
by the people in the district wherein
he shall have resided thirty days previous
to such election
This act went into effect on April Is,
1897, and by it's terms did not apply to
the members of the common council of
this city until those elected at the 1898
election were indicted into office
Under the rule laid down by the SUI,
preme court in NicoI ks. City of st. Paul
50 Mimi. 415, and kindred cases. if we
assume the validity of this act and L
repeal and take the place Of our pre-
Vious charter provisions.
Refers to the Home Charter.
''In 1899 the enabling act and constitu-
tional provisions under which our pres
ent charter was framed and adopted went
into operation. By this constitutional
amendment cities were authorized to
frame their own charters, subject to the
constitution and laws Of this state and
it has always been the position of this
0PnaTfmGnt ralViOC N ho in,
language employed by Justice Brewer,
OF the federal supreme court in the case
OF The City of st. Louis VS. Western
Union Telegraph Company 149 u s. 49,
in constituting a similarly framed charter
under which the city of St Louis is on
Grating, that this exempted us from the
operation of general laws previously en-
acted by the legislature similar to this
act Of 1897, compelling us only to frame
our charters in accordance with the gem
eral theory or scheme of law existing
under the constitution and as declared
by the courts. This view has been urged
a number of times before the district
court and has never yet been declared
TO be unsOund, so that there is no Occd-
sion to suggest here the reasons which
support it.
when the present charter was framed
therefor, and there was included in it
such a provision as that to which you
nave called our attention it became,
upon its adoption, the only provision of
organic law applicable to this city reIat-
ing to its subject matter. In other words
the law Of 1897 ceased to operate so far
as the city OF st. Paul was concerned.
me charte provision in question reads as
follows:
Every alderman, at the time Of his
election. shall be. and during his term of
once shaII remain. a qualified elector
was elected, and no alderman or assem-
blyman shall during the term of office
for which he was elected hold any other
q ~ off oIc
people,
Makes Fine Distinctions
'Its effect is to render any member of
the common council ineligible to any ap-
pointive city office during the term OF
office for which he was elected even
Though he resigns his office in the coun-
ell. You will note that there is no pro-
hlbitiOn upon his holding state or county
Offices during that time
The legislature Of 1901, by chapter 379.
of the General Laws for that year.
amended section 1 of the~aet of 1897, chap
ter 131, above referred TO, so that it
should read as follows:
:" 1t shall be unlawful for any person
hereafter elected to any of the follow
Ing offices, that is TO say, the office of
councilman, aSSemblyman or alderman
in any city, or in the office of county
commissioner in any county. in this state,
to hold any other office in such civ or
county during the term for which he was
elected or appointed, except an Office
elective by the people in the district
whrein he shall have resided thirty days
previous to such election, and also ex-
cept an office to which he may be ap-
pointed by the judges of any court of
record exclusively, and also except any>
officer appointed to the board of public
works of any city. Provided, that moth
ing in this act shall be construed to an
ply to city or county officer, who by vir-
tue of his office as such, holds occupies
or exercises. the functions Of any other
public Office