The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-12-04
NO BOUNTY FOR
SUGAR COMPANY
The Supreme Court Dismisses the
Action Looking to It's Col
lection.
Certiorari Had Been Brought to
Establish Legality Of Auditors
Action.
This Appears to End the Matter, as
There Is No Further Re
course.

The Minnesota Sugar company Will
not collect it's claim for sugar boun-
ties earned under the law of 1899.
The supreme court to-day decided the
act unconstitutional, and that no
moral obligation on the part OF the
state can be predicated upon an un-
constitutional statute" The writ OF
certiorari, under which the state aud
itors refusal to pay the bounty was
reviewed, is discharged.
The amount claimed was $19,925.36,
the amount earned in 1900. The COM
pany In that year made l,992, o5o
pounds Of sugar, on which the 1888
law gave them a bounty of one cent
pound State Auditor Dunn refused
to pay the claim and the legislatures
of 1901 and 1908 refused to appro-
pirate money to pay it. May IL of
this year the company served a for
NAL demand for the money on State
Auditor Iverson. He refused to pay,
and Judge Kelly of the Ramsey coun-
ty district court was applied to for
mandamus. He refused it, and the
attorneys for the company then ap-
of certiorari. This was granted, and
the action Of the state auditor was
reviewed.
The opinion is by Judge Collins, and
is regarded as a strong one. State
Auditor Iverson says:
and of the greatest Importance to the
public. It has an important bearing
on the future policy of the state. Had
the sugar company won the case, the
next legislature would have been
flooded with applications for bounties
for every conceivable purpose"
The opinion holds that the state
auditors oct was quasi judicial, since
it affected the rights and property of
citizens, and passed on the constftu-
tionaIity of the law. The court can
not review the acts Of state officers
or ministerial. but only when Judicial
or quasi. judicial in their, character.
Under this proceeding the court could
not have forced the auditor to conform
to the act, even if it had been held
valid. If the auditors action had
been found erroneous, another and
further remedy must have been dis
covered by the petitioner.
The attorney general is sustained in
his contention that the, act contern-
plated grant of public money for
a private purpose and was therefore
In conflict with sections 5 and 10 Of
article OF the constitution.
THE act falls far outside Of any
rule we have been able to discover"
says Judge Collins IN the opinion. cit
was simply an attempt to aid a pri-
vssseN business enterprise, over which
exercise no more supervision than it
could over one Of the hundreds Of
merchant Touring mills scattered over
the state
On the moral obligation argu-
ment he says:
IA moral obligation upon the part
Of the state must have something
more substantial than legislation OBJ
noxious to the fundamental law to
rest upon; something more for a
foundation or starting point than q
statute which is itself immoral
The syllabus Of the decision is as
follows:
Minnesota Sugar Company, petitioner, VS.
S. c. Iverson. State Auditor respondent
First-The state auditor refused to al
low and issue warrants for the sugar
bounty provided for in laws 1895, chapter
125, as amended by laws 1899, chapter 3O7
for the year 1900, upon the ground tina
both of the above mentioned acts are II
direct violation Of sections and 10, articl,
8, Of the constitution. Held that Whei
the auditor refused to issue the warrant
for the reason before stated he acted il
quasi judicial capacity and in a man
ner affecting the rights or property Of
citizen analogous to the manner in which
they are affected by proceedings or de
cisions Of the court, and that certiorar
will lie In such a case to review his act
and to determine the rights of a petition TO
the bounty before mentioned.
second-Laws 1895, chapter 1875. a
amended by laws 1899, chapter S07, pro
viding for the payment Of certain bountie
to manufacturers Of sugar from beet
grown in this state, are unconstitutional
because in violation of the provisions Q
sections and 10, article 9, of the funda
mental law.
Third-An unconstitutional statute !
simply statute in form, is not law an
under every circumstance or conditio
lacks the force Of law. It is Of no NOR
saving effect to Justify legislative actio
taken under it than as tho it had neve
been enacted No moral obligation on tn
part Of the state can be predtcated upo
an unconstitutional statute.
Writ discharged. Collins, ].