The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1908-02-19

1tRoOt4 CAA1d d4A AAOb NJ I'LL - esNSAASAOA~S~>
local legislation by city councils to
render it operative and effectual.
A few years later, in Kelly VS.. Fari-
bault, SO MINI. 9, this case was APP
proved, and it was held that chap.
5. sec. 2, G. L. 1887 (which had be
come sec. 2023, 1894 forbade the
granting of licenses for the sale of
intoxicating liquors for less sum
than five hundred dollars but author
lied the council of any city Of the
designated class to exact license
fee in excess of that sum. This
power to provide for higher license
fee than that fixed by the general
statute is expressly reserved to cit
les, and State VS.. Peterson. while
holding that all inconsistent charter
provisions were repealed. recognized
the fact that certain power over the
subject remained in the municipal
tiles. The question of the effect OF
the 1887 legislation upon city char
tiers again came before the court in
State VS.. Harris, SO MINI. 1913, which
involved the validity of an ordi-
nance of the city Of Minneapolis
regulating the closing Of saloons on
Sunday. The penalty provided by
the ordinance differed somewhat
from that imposed by the state law,
but it was held that the charter had
not been repealed. "The general
law" said Mr.. Justice Dickinson,
"does not necessarily repeal all local
municipal ordinances or the previ-
ously conferred power to pass ordi-
nances respecting the subject, only
in so far as the local ordinances or
authority may be inconsistent with
this general legislation has the latter
a necessary repeating effect. An
ordinance may be valid and effectual
even though it related to matters
which are made offences and de-
clared punishable under the general
law, even though the punishment
prescribed in both be the same"
That the different penalties pre-
scribed in the Minneapolis ordinance
considered in State VS.. Harris and
the statute made them inconsistent,
was urged in State VS.. Lindquist "
MINI. $40. But the court said:
change in the penaly provided by
general laws for selling liquor con-
trary TO such laws is in no manner
inconsistent with the special charter
provisions authorizing the city of
Minneapolis to license, regulate and
control the traffic within the city
limits by ordinance, and to enforce
lit by appropriate penalties, there
fore the charter provisions and ordi-
nances in question were not repealed
by the general laws of 1887 regulat-
ing the sale of Intoxicating liquors. "
See also, State VS.. Scatena, "a MINI
l28l; City of Jornan VS.. Ficolin. "a
MINI. 367; State VS.. Marciniak, 81
MINI. 358-357. The result of these
decisions is that the 1887 Legislation
did not have the effect of repeating
by implication all existing specia
laws and the ordinances enacted
Hereunder. The question in eacf
case, was the existing charter OF
{ ordinance so inconsistent that it anc
the state law could not exist at the
same time?
In 1891 (chap. l, special laws) at
ter the legislature had adopted tn
general system Of regulation pro
J vided by the 1887 acts, it passed
, special statute, which constitute
the charter of the city of Redwood
Falls. By that act the city wa
authorized to enact ordinances req
ulating the traffic in Intoxicating
liquors and it was provided tina
mo license shall be granted for
less term than one year, and a
4 licenses shall commence and term
E nate on the 10th day of January o
Y each year." If any of the prov
! sions of this statute were inconsist
t ent with the existing laws, til
5 result was to repeal the prior law.
e Unquestionably the charter prov
!sion thus remained in force unit
{ the adoption of the Revised Laws I
f 1905. unless it was repealed by 81
eIG. L. 1895. But that statute r,