The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1923-02-23
Commission Had Power To
Make Changes
STATUSOFCOUNCIL
Not Within Its Jurisdiction To
Deny People Special
Election

Ol lne peOple luf IueiI dPploNdi VI
rejection.
Decision OF the Blue Earth county
district court in the case of J. W.
Andrews, president OF the Mankato
charter commission. against the
city council of Mankato, in the mat
ter OF the submission oil proposed
changes of the city charter to a
vote of the people. has been Tevers
ed by the state supreme court.
This means that the proposed
changes 10 the city charter as made
by the members Of the Mankato
commission last winter will have tn
be either submitted TO the vote or
the people at the general city eiec
ton on April 3, or at special cleo ,
ton called for such> submission.
According to the statement oil
CITY Attorney > c. f. Gilmore, there
is sufficient time for the filing Of
the petition for submission, and, that
In all probability the proposed
changes to the city charter will be
submitted 10 vote OF the people at
the coming spring election.
It is stated in the opinion render
ed by the state supreme court that
ii the amendments are ratified, the
officers chosen under the provisions
OF the present charter will continue
tC serve, until the next general cleo
ton. which will be held on the first
Monday in December, 1874.
?. g.. Syllabus and Opinion
The syllabus and opinion in the
case are as follows:
syllabus:
49,. One. Neither the governing
body OF a city nor the courts
have any supervisory powers
over the form OF amendments TO
home rule charter, prepared
BY board of freeholders ap-
pointed by virtue OF Sec. lS4S,
The provisions of Sec. 1850
G. S. 1918, with reference to
the submission Of amendments
10 home rule charters arc man
datory. II is the absolute duty of
a city council to submit such
amendments. subject possibly
TO the qualification that they
need not be submitted il II is
apparent. that they are not in
harmony with the Constitution
or laws Of this state.
Two.,. The failure OF a city
council TO submit such amend
ments as directed by statute
does not put an end TO the duty
TO submit them or call special
election for that purpose. Such
election may be held at the
same time as the general city
election and may be conducted
by the same election of Officers.
Reversed.
The opinion:
Appeal from a judgment quashinG
an alternative writ of mandamus by
which respondents were required to
publish and submit at a special cleo
ton certain amendments TO -tht
Charter OF the City of Mankato. The
facts we're set forth in the writ al
follows:
Mankato has a home rule charter
adopted in the year 1910. In May
1922, and within six months OF the
general election held in NoYembei
following the board of freeholders
appointed by virtue of Sec. 1343, G
s. 1913. delivered the draft OF the
proposed amendments to respond
cnts, the mayor and counctlmen o
the city. The amendments were no
published or submitted at the No
yember election and respondent
declined to call a special election a
which they might be submitted: II
their answer, respondents admitte'
the facts to be as above stated an;
alleged that their action was lawful
Referring to called Police wo
man Amendment, they alleged tina
they were willing to submit 1t at tn
general city election to be held II
April. 1923. The courts order wa
filed December 81, 1922, and was &C
companied by a memorandum n
which IL was said that one OF thu
amendments was so worded as U
be of uncertain meaning; that Their
was failure to make provision TO
- Of O
ton of candidates for the offices o
Judge and special judge of the Mu
nicipal Court of Mankato; and tina
an amendment relating to the pro
cedure in levying assessments 10
the cost of laying watermains re
ferred to charter provisions dealin
with the power Of eminent domain
instead OF special assessments: tn
opinion was expressed that the re
quirement of certainty IN leglsia
tive enactm ents had not been 90
served; that this was a matter to b
considered by the court, and 1t wa
suggested that the amendments b
referred back to the Board OF Free
holders for reconsideration and clar
iScation and then returned to re
spopdents for submission at tn
general city election in April, 1873.
Duty Of Council
1t was J0ef duty VI thS SouhSn '
submit the amendments at the No
yember general election, If the fact
are as stated in the writ. Respond
ents brief informs us that there ar
glaring defects in the propose
amendments which were pubiici
pointed out and called to the atten
ton of the attorney foT the Board G
Freebolders in time to permit cor
rections to be made and the revise
amendments submitted at the M
yember election, but the Board re
fused TO rewrite them and has con
tinued to insist that the mayor an
council should cali an election an
submit them in their present form
These are matters outside the rec
ord and not for the consideration
the courts. 1t is not within the prt'
vince of the governing body OF a cit
or of a court to pass judgment o
the quality of the work done by
Board of F'reeholders. Such board
NAV and sometimes do write char
fer provisions or amendments whic
are of doubtful meaning, or amend
ments which do not dovetail in,
charter provisions left untouche'
In a word, although the work Of I'll
hoard may have been badly dom
> th.t ie M reason why the electol