The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-03-29
OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN
ACTION AGAINST. CITY EXTENSION
Mine Points on Which it is Claimed That Council Went
Astray in Seeking to Bring New Territory in
Judge Ternpleton Has Case Now.

Judge Tompleton has taken under
~alidity Of the city extension ordinance
passed by tho Grand Forks council.
Arguments On the proposition requir-
I'd w entire DAYS. being completed
late Thursday afternoon.
Tho contentious of the plaintiffs in
the case. showing thoroughly on what
grounds they seek to set aside the
councils action follow:
First. tn" original resolution is void
because TN" city council lacks j%urisdic-
tion /" receive or enact the same in
this Tn. original area of the city is
not 70 exceed l.6o5 acres: the orig
inal resolution is in excess OF SIS
acres.
The law tCh. * laws 1900 pro-
vides that amy city g may SO
extend its boundaries as to increase
the territory within the corporate
limits no, to exceed one-half of its
present area.
Second. the original resolution being
! void. because in excess of the jurisdic-
ton OF the council. then all subsequent
steps are void and fall with it; thus.
the protests w"ro Il nullity. because
there was nothing against which TO
protest: tn" attempted amendment
was void because there was nothing to
amend: and finally. the amended res
olution attempted to be adopted was
void because resting thereon.
Third. but if We assume that the
original resolution was valid the final
result is no better because there has
been made the order required
by the statute.
The statute requires that il protest
is made. then the council shall hear
testimony in re such extension" they
. -l,r I --. l., mo- 80 g -,~:e
ion such territory" de. the territory
embraced in the original resolution)
ought to be annexed, and if the city
council orders that "such territory"
snail be SO included within the cor
poratc limits of the city, it shall make
an order. etc.
The proceedings are purely statu-
tory: the council has no authority
greater or other than that conferred
By. the statute.
III statuta requires the enactment
OF an original resolution; if this res
olution is not protested, the territory
embraced therein becomes a part of
the city.
If protests are fled. then the council
has the right to determine whether or
not the territory therein shall be an
neXed.
The stature does not.confer power
upon the city. after protest, to order
such territory or n part thereof"
to De embraced within the limits, but,
by contrast. the council has jurisdic-
ton to order such territory" to be
included.
Is Unconstitutional.
Fourth, h statute is void for con-
fict with the constitution sub. div. 33,
sec. 50. f%orbidding special or local leg
islation for the Incorporation OF cities.
All authorities agree that the extern
sion of the limits amounts to an in
corporation Of the annexed property.
The law in question is not a general
law providing for annexation. but 1t Is
a general law to delegate the nco
trolled power Of annexation to each
separate municipality.
The law is measured by its effect:
the legislature could not by law ex-
tend the limits OF the city of Grand
Forks: neither could it grant the pow
er to the city Of Grand Forks 80 to
extend its limits: yet, by indirection.
it has accomplished this result, for
it has granted TO all cities such power.
the law is not a general law for an.
nexation. but. repeating, it Is a general
law OF delegation.
Fifth. the statute is void for conflict
with Sec. 1870 OF the constitution. pro-
viding: The legislative assembly shall
provide by general law for the or
ganization of municipal corporations"
The constitution thus imposes upon
the legislature the duty to provide for
the organization Of cities: It does not
authorize the delegation of power: the
mandatory ''shalI' IL employed; the
duty is specially enjoined upon the
legislature: such duty cannot be re-
delegated.
The annexation amounts to tn or
~ganizatlon Of the new territory into a
municipal corpora tion: the statute at
temptS to authorize this to be done by