The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1912-05-17
Difference of Charters Is Cited;
Powers Given Mayors.
EXECUTIVE HERE SUBMERGED
That Officer in SANITY City Distinctive;
Awaiting the Supreme Court
Decision.


sustains the Mankato commission
plan charter, that will remove all
doubt as to the cOnstitutiOnality of
the commission plan charter adopted
last Tuesday in ST. Paul, says The
st. Paul Dispatch. Should the SUI
preme court decide against the Man.
kato plan the st. Paul plan might
still be declared constitutional The
Mankato decision is expected in
about two weeks
There are but three constitutional
provisions that can be invoked to
mission plan charter:
Section 4, article of the federal
constitution, which provides that
1.-THE United States shall guarantee
to every state a republican form of
government"
Section l, article of the constitu-
ton of Minnesota, which provides:
"The powers Of the government
shall be divided into three distinct
departments, the legislative, execu-
tive and judicial; and no person or
persons belonging to or constituting
one of these departments shall exer-
else any of the powers properly be-
longing to either of the others, ex-
cept in the instances provided in
this constitution"
A clause in section sc, article 4,
which provides:
ut shall be a feature of all such
charters that there shall be provided,
among other things, for mayor or
chief magistrate, and a legislative
body of either one or two houses"
Des Mones Settled Questions.
Des Moines has litigated it's CON-
mission charter government through
the Iowa Supreme Court. In doing
so it has practically settled the ques-
ton as to section 4, article 4, of the
federal Constitution and section 1,
article 3 of the Minnesota constitu-
ton. Briefly the Iowa supreme court
held that neither provision had any
application to city government, but
applied only to the state government
1t went further and held that the
commission plan was a republican
form of government.
The court also sustained the initi-
alive and referendum as applied to
cities and the mode of electing Off
GERS, that is, limiting names printed
on the ballot to two candidates for
each place.
Tho vsotD nf fh1
tuition, section l, article 8, is prac-
tically identical with the provision
of the Minnesota constitution upon
the subject.
The only other constitutional point
is the clause of section Sc, article i,
requiring an elective mayor and city
council Both Mankato and ST. Paul
have provided for elective mayors
and councils. Mankato provides for
a mayor and four councilmen, and
ST. Paul for a mayor and six coun-
cilmen.
Mankato Mayor Is Submerged.
Mankato's mayor, however, is
largely submerged in the council He
is given general powers to see that
officers do their duty. He becomes
member of the council. He loses
the veto power, but has vote. Man.
kato's mayor is made department
head and is assigned with the other
commissioners by the council.
On the other hand the mayor
provided for ST. Paul is distinctive
m Hn no
of seeing that the laws are enforced
and that officers do their duty. In
addition he has power of assigning
the department heads and power Of
removal of subordinates which puts
him i'm position to compel officers to
do their duty. He appoints a pur-
chasing agent. He retains the veto
which is broad and effective as to
appropriations In fact, he is made
the co-ordinating officer of the city
government, and has large respons-
Utility in seeing that the business of :
the city is done 1t is true that he
is a member of the council, its pres
ident, and has vote. But if that
were prohibited at all it would not
be- by Section SO, Article 4, but by
Section 1, Article 8, which the Iowa
supreme court says does not apply at
all to cities.
st. .PauPs Mayor to Have Powers.
In fact, st. Pauls mayor has very
substantial power, and greater pow
er than the present mayor of st.
Paul or of Minneapolis, or score
of other Minnesota cities where
there is no question at all but he is
mayor within the meaning of the
constitution. In the light of the
Iowa decision 1t looks as though the
chance of declaring the st. Paul
charter unconstitutional is so re-
mote as not to be a practical ques-
ton.
There is now pending and to be
voted upon next fall a constitutional
amendment which would specifically
authorize commission plan govern
ment If it should be adopted it
would end all controversy as to con-
stitutionality of the commission plan.
The fate of ST. Paul's commission
plan does not depend upon the out