The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-11-13
SUPREME COURT
NO NEED OF LICENSE
Plumbers License Law of 1901 Is
Knocked Out by the su-
preme Court.
The Court Holds That Classification
by City Population Is With
out Reason.

The supreme court holds the plumb
ers' license law of 1901 unconstitu-
tional, in an opinion filed this morn
ing. The case came up on a writ of
habeas corpus, which was denied by
the district court of Ramsey county.
Chapel. the relator, had been fined
$25 for working at the plumbing
trade without license. He is dis
charged by the action Of the court.
Two Hennepin county decisions had
already decided against the law.
The court holds that the classical
ton is without proper reason. Cities
under 10000 may have as great need
for sanitary plumbing as larger places.
The failure to require licenses from
master plumbers is also a fatal. defect.
The syllabus of the decision is as fol-
lows:
State of Minnesota ex rel. Paul Chapel,
petitioner, vs.. Philip c. Justus, as
Sheriff of Ramsey County. respondent:
Chapter 3b6, Laws OF 1901, which re-
quire journeymen plumbers to take an eX-
animation and procure a certificate of
competency held unconstitutional. being
ncontravention to sections 33 and 81,
article ~ of the constitution. An arbi-
trary basis of classification is adopted in
restricting the application Of the act to
cities Of 10000 Inhabitants or more, which
have system OF sewer and waterworks,
dinction is made between master plumbers
and journeymen plumbers.
Order reversed. and It is ordered that
! the prisoner be discharged. Lewis, j.
Contract Is Void.
st. PauIs lighting contract with the
| Cleveland Vapor Light company is
| knocked out by a decision in an In
junction proceeding. The court holds
that It was improper to grant the
contract by motion instead of a reso-
luton, as the motion did not require
the mayors signature. Judge Brown
dissents, holding that the mayor had
authority to approve or disapprove the
contract, and di act by fixing his sig
nature to it.
Bad faith had been charged in let
ting the contract, and while the court
does not sustain the charge, Judge
Lewis, in the majority opinion, calls
attention to the remarkable haste of
4 the council in calling for proposals,
and says that the failure to give OPP
portunity for a free discussion gives
some ground for suspicion as to the
motive of the participants.
| Victory for Child Labor Law.
| A victory for the child labor law
| is won by A. w. Selover, the Mime
apolis attorney, in the decision of the
case of James Elmer Perry, a minor,
against David Tozer, a sawmill own
err. Perry, at the age Of Ia, was en-
ployed in Tozer's mill and was injured,
losing a foot. The court holds that
his employment was illegal, accord
ing to the evidence, and that the evil
dence tended to show negligence On
the part Of Tozer in not providing
proper safeguards. Fl
Duluth Paving Case.
The city attorney. Of Duluth wins
/ his contention with the Barber As
phalt company, andb his appeal from
an allowance Of $25,G00 on their con-
4 tract will be heard}s by the district
! court. The supreme court refuses to
1 grant the writ Of prohibition asked
for by the company.
Bond Issue Not Authorized. e
| st. Clouds bond issue for the re-
purchase of the city waterWorks is
!. knocked out. the court holding that
i the enabling act passed last winter
was unconstitutional. It was limited
to cities of 10000 Inhabitants, which
had owned their cwn waterWorks -sys-
tens, and then sold them, reserving
the right to repurchase. The court
holds this too restricted a classlnca-
ton to be a general law.
Other Decisions.
Other decisions to-day:
Ak. zTiyete VS.. G. F. Burau ct. al, de-
4 fendants; i. e. Horton, respondent;
Judgment affirmed.
Jacob Les, respondent, VS.. George v
scherer, appellant: Order affirmed
John Beckfelt, respondent, vs.! John r
Donohue, appellant: Order affirmed.
Emma E. E. Dougan, respondent. vs.. Ken
nedy Dougan, appellant: Order af
II firmed $40
S. A. Berni, respondent vs. Clara Boyel
alias Clara Larson and Laura Adam!
alias Ada Savelle, appellants: Judgmen
affirmed.
Nina l.. Holmes, respondent, VS.. Franl
D. Holmes, appellant: Order affirmed
= William B. Phelps, respondent. vs.. Michae
a. Powers, appellant: Judgment af
zfrmed. -"
THEUNTVEPSTTY 4.