The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-06-13
SUGAR BOUNTY CASE
BREAKS INTO
COURT
Company Succeeds in Getting
Its Contention Before the
Supreme Judges ON Writ
Of Certiorari - No Tele-
phone Monopoly of Streets
Supreme Court Decisions

bounties from the state, under the law
of 1899, the Minnesota Sugar company,
of st. Louis Park, succeeded in get
ting hearing of it's contention in the
supreme court, under process Of a writ
of certiorari. This decision per curiam
filed yesterday IS in itself point
gained, although it does not in any
way affect or enter into the merits of
the main contention. The court even
WlthhOlds for the present its reasons
for granting the writ of certiorari I'M
der which it consents to review the &C
ton of the state auditor in refusing to
pay the bounty demanded by the COM
pany.
The law of 1899, under which the de-
mand was made upon the auditor, had
been declared by the attorney general
of the state to be unconstitutional. and
a previous claim of the company for
bounties under this law had been re-
fused. When the demand for the
bounties now in Question-which
upon the auditor, he promptly turned
1t down, and an application to the dis
trict court for a writ Of mandamuS
was denied.
Application was then made to the
supreme court for a writ of cert1orari,
with the result as stated above. The
contention in this application hinged
ty of reviewing the action Of the au-
ditor in this ease under writ Of Ger
ttorari, and the supreme court was
placed in a peculiarly delicate posi-
ton in deciding this point from the
fact that there are previous decisions
Of this court in support of either side
of the question.
Attorney General Douglas. for the
state, and former Attorney General
nn nrQnQrQ6 Y
tensive briefsse each, employing the full
force of the particular one of these
conflicting decisions that fitted his
viewpoint in the contention.
Mandamus the Proper Mode.
Attorney General Douglas argued
that the only proper mode of procedure
in this case would be mandamus. for
the reason that the auditor, in refusing
to pay the bounty demanded, was not
exercising either judicial or quasi
judicial functions, but was merely act
Ing in the discharge of his official
power and duty. He dWelt upon the
Importance to the court of keeping the
scope of the writ Of certiorari within
it's proper bounds, and not permitting
it to be invoked to review the acts of
any of the state officers without scru-
pulous discrimination. He argued that
in upholding the application for a
writ of certiorari in this case. the court
would be letting down the bars and
would greatly increase its own work.
One point upon which he laid much
stress was that a state officer can
only be held to be- exercising judicial
or quasi judicial functions when his
action will affecc atne property rights of
individuals in such manner as they
would be affected by a@ceurt acting in
its judicial capacity. s
10 q
former, decision of the court, in which
the auditor was held to be exercising
judicial functions in deciding a con-
troversy between two counties as to
personal property taxes. spe
The decision of the court in grant
ing the application of the Minnesota
Sugar company is as follows:
Holds certiorari Writ Is Proper.
"This was on order to show cause
why a writ of certiorari should not is
sue, directed to the state auditor, and
requiring him to transmit to this
court certified copies of the records
of his office and of all reports there
tofore made to him. and of all other
papers relating to the claim of the pc
titiOner for a bounty upon sugar man.
ufactured by it, which bounty, it is
asserted, is due from the state, under
the provisions Of, the General Laws of
1895, chapter 205, as amended by the
General Laws Of 1899, chapter 307.
The return made by the auditor. when
fairly construed, is that he refused to
allow and audit the claim made by the
petitiones< solely upon the ground that
the act OF 1895, as amended in 1888, is
obnoxious to the provisions of the
state constitution. and therefore in
valid and Of no force or effect.
1--WE are of the opinion that under
the circumstances appearing from
the petition and the return thereto
the writ should issue as prayed for,
but we will defer stating our reasons
arising when the auditor makes re-
turn, in obedience to the writ. are be-
fore us for determination. Let the
writ issue as prayed for"
Must Put Its Wires Overhead.
In the fight between the Northwest
ern and Twin City Telephone compa-
MES, at Minneapolis. over the stringing
of their wires on the streets. the
Northwestern company comes out vic
torious. The court holds that since
the Northwestern company has priori-
ty in occupancy of the streets, with
its poles and wires. the Twin City
company must not place it's wires i'm
mediately below those of the North
western company at points of inter-
section.
There is some solace to the Twin
City company In the decision, for the
court holds that no company can gain
a monopoly of aerial space, and that
the Northwestern company cannot bar
the Twin City company from any
streets, provided the wires of the lat
ter company are placed sufficiently
above those of the former not to in
with
The court holds that Anthony
Evans and H. A. Gill, employees of the
Columbia theater, in Minneapolis,
fined for selling liquor without license,
must either pay the fines imposed or
serve the alternative jail sentences.
Each of the men was convicted Of
having sold at the Columbia theater a
because the complaint failed to allege
that the liquor sold was intoxicating
the contention was made. that the
complaint did not set forth an offense.
The supreme court says:
1.-THE defendant was convicted in the
municipal court of Minneapolis of the
offense of selling one quart Of malt
the city ordiH&ce. Upon his appeal
from an order Denying his motion for
a new trial, it is held:
"First-It was not necessary to al
lege in the complaint that the malt
liquor was intoxicating, or to plead the
ordinance, or to conclude the COM
plant, contrary to the statute
"Second-The city council Of Mime
apolis has the power to prohibit and
punish the sale of malt liquor without
a license.
"Third-The court did not err in ex-
Guiding evidence tending to show that
the defendant believed the liquor sold
by him was not intoxicating.
'Fourth-Thef conviction is sustain
ed by the evidence"
Other cases decided were as for