New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1909-07-14
Pork Barrel Law
Held to be Invalid
Decision Says State Executive
Officer is Subject to Suit. The
Governor Smiles. "Let
them do it,

In an opinion of the Supreme Court.
written by Chief Justice G. M. Start,
the so-called "pork barrel" law is de-
clared unconstitutional. By this act
the last legislature had appropriated
100000 as state aid for roads and
bridges throughout counties in Mime
sofa.
The constitutionality Of the law was
attacked in suit brought by State
Sen. L. A. Cooke of Wabasha, and
directed against S. G. Iverson, state
auditor. The decision affirms that of
the district court of Ramsey county.
The supreme court makes two i'm
portant points, overriding the general
belief that a state executive officer can
not be sued, and holding that in his
purely ministerial duties suit may be
brought where remedy is needed.
The court also holds the appropria-
tion laws in question-Chapters 81 and
sos, Laws of 19O9-are unconstitution-
III in that the state has not the legal
authority to carry on works of inter-
n.y. Improvement.
An extra session of the legislature
is among the possible results of the
decision.
This was admitted by Gov. j. A.
johnson, when approached on the
matter. 1t will depend on how the re-
suits Of the decision "pan out" and
to what serious extent the various
counties and state betterments are
hampereI.
Gov. Johnson also called attention
to the fact that special session could
also give attention to bill for con-
stitutlonal change to permit of an in
come tax, in accordance with the AL
drichPayne bill pending in congress.
AS to the holding of the court that
an executive officer can be sued under
certain conditions, thegovernor's only
reply, accompanied with a smile, was
"I'd like to see 'em sue me-
The syllabus of the decision is as
follows:
Courts cannot, by Injunction, man
damus, Or other process, control or
direct the head of the executive depart
ment OF the state in the discharge OF
any executive duty involving the exer-
else of his discretion: but, where du-
ties purely ministerial in character are
conferred upon the chief executive, Or
any member of the executive depart
ment, as defined by our constitution,
and he refuses to act, or where he as
sumes to act in violation of the con-
stitution and laws of the state, he may
be compelled to act, or restrained from
acting, as the case may be, at the suit
of one who is injured thereby in his
person or his property, for which he
has no other adequate remedy.
Chapters 81 and sos, Laws 1909, pur.
porting to appropriate money out Oh
the general revenue fund of the state
for the building and repairing of roads
and bridges, are unconstitutional for
the reason that they violate section S,
article 9, of the state constitution, for.
bidding the state to be party to the
carrying On OF works Of internal i'm
provement, and section IT, article 9,
prescribing the manner and limiting
the extent of state aid in the construc.
ton of public highways and bridges.
Tt is stated that this decision of the
Supreme Court will seriously hamper
road betterments in many counties,
and it is certain, will be received with
re sentiment in the country districts
At the capitol there is considerable
speculation as to what will result.
S ONE predict that representatives o.
the country districts will begin further
suits, based on the holding of the court
that the state cannot appropriate
mo ney for internal Improvements. .
There may be the question raised as
to W neither the large appropriations
for the state fair grandstand, for the
park waterway on the fair grounds,
- anu Tor extension of the state capitol
grounds and university campus are
not Illegal internal improvements. y