The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-11-04
Of the state as embodied in chapter 10
above referred to.
General Law Paramount.

: ~ 2 d i Is s
This general law not only supersedes
any provision Of the former general
| laws or the state, but it is also para.
mount, to any provision which might
have been placed In the new charter.
That it Is paramount is established by
the, state constitutional amendment,
which provides that.
''The legislature may provide gem
ssral laws relating to affairs of cities
y which shall be para
mount while in force to the provisions
relating to the same matter included in
the local charter herein provided for.'
day, in plain terms giving the CITY
power to issue bonds For tie purposes
specified In chapter 10 above referred
to and limiting, the net Indebtedness
of the city therein defined to per cent,
one must look under the surface to I'm.
derstand the motives of one opponent
OF the new charter, who states in the
form of an editorial that Hunder the
proposed new charter the city could
sell bonds without limit, to buy, out all
the department, stores, or, establish a
municipal red light district If It
could do pis's under new charter it
can do, so now. The only. things today
that stand in the way Of the disaster
portrayed are the city council and
majority of the voters of the citx;
either of, which can be trusted, think,
to exercise better Judgment than that
displayed in the editorial.
But the reasons, If any, against Civ
ing the city council and majority of
the voters. the right to issue bonds, as
now provided in the general laws of
the state, should have been addressed
to the legislature at it's last session
and urged against the adoption of the
revised laws. They should not now be
put forward as objections to the pro-
posed charter.
The Minneapolis Exception.
But in fairness it should be stated
that it is claimed that chapter 10 above
referred to itself excerpts Minneapolis
that consequently if the new charter
had not given the increased authority
to issue bonds, chapter 10 would not
have applied to Minneapolis. If Min
neapolis IS excepted from the provisions
of ch'.pter 10 it can be only by virtue
of cne of two sections, one Of which
is section 779 Of this chapter 10, which
reads as follows:
779-Charter Powers Not NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
herein shall be construed as abrogatng any re-
strict1on imposed, rs modifying or extending
any power conferred. upon city, village or
borough, by any provision of it's charter re-
latlng to corporate Indebtedness. Except as so
limited. all municipal corporations shall be gov
erned in respect thereto by the provisions OF
this chapter. (2224).
Please note that according to this
section, if our old or present charter
does not limit the bonded indebted
ness, then the city is governed by chap
ter 10 in respect to issuing bonds.
know of no limit in our present char
ter to the issuance of bonds. [ chal-
lenge anyone to point any such limita-
ton. On the contrary the truth is
there isn't even power to issue any
bonds in the old charter-say nothing
about limitation. In fact one of the
faults of the old charter is it's failure
to contain such power and consequent
ly the city has been compelled year
after year to go to the legislature and
get power to issue bonds for schools,
bridges and various other city pur-
poses, formerly by special laws and lat
terly under the guise of general laws.
If then there IS no limitation in our
present old charter upon the issue of
bonds, then it follows inevitably that
chapter 10 Of the revised laws applies
to this city and the adoption of new
charter does not vary that limitation
ono way orsthe other. * X.
=. ~, An. Ingenious sophistry.
But again, it is claimed that by indi-
rection our charter has been amended
and that it does, as a result of such
amendment, contain a limitation upon
bonded Indebtedness which would be re-