Curryer v. Merrill
| Decision Date | 18 April 1878 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 1 |
| Parties | Joseph C. Curryer v. Daniel D. Merrill and others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
By an act of the legislature, entitled "An act to provide uniform and cheap text-books for the public schools of Minnesota," approved February 23, 1877, (Laws 1877, c 75; Gen. St. 1878, c. 36, §§ 156-167,) it is provided that certain designated state officers shall make a contract on behalf of the state with Daniel D. Merrill of St Paul, for furnishing to the state, for the period of fifteen years, suitable text-books for use in the public schools of the state. The act provides that the text-books to be furnished shall be supplied within maximum prices fixed by the act, shall be equal in size and quality to certain designated books, and shall be approved by a commission appointed by the act. The books thus furnished are to be used in all the public schools of the state, except that it is provided that the act "shall not be obligatory upon boards of education acting under special charters" -- a proviso which embraces the public schools in many of the cities of the state.
The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county to restrain the execution of the contract between the state and Merrill, alleging, among other things that he is a resident of school-district 106 in Blue Earth county, and the father of children entitled to attend and attending the school of that district, which is a common school-district, and not within the jurisdiction of any board of education; that his children are supplied with the text-books already in use in the public schools in the state and which will be superseded by the text-books to be furnished under the Merrill contract; that he will be obliged to purchase the new series of books, without the benefit of a competitive market, and at a higher price than that at which he can buy the standards named in the act; and that the loss of the books now in use, and the purchase of the new ones to be furnished by Merrill, will damage him in the amount of eight dollars and more, and will damage the parents of children attending the public schools in the amount of $ 300,000 and more, and will seriously impede his and their children in obtaining the benefits of a free school education, and will preclude many children from the common schools altogether.
He further alleges that he is a dealer in the books now in use, and has on hand, for sale, a stock of such books of the value of $ 150 and upwards, and that the value of such text-books owned and held for sale in the state is upwards of $ 400,000, and the use and value of these will be destroyed if the contract sought to be prevented shall be made, and the new text-books, to be furnished thereunder, shall be introduced. He also alleges that the creation and maintenance of the "revolving fund" provided for in the act will necessarily impose additional taxation on himself and others.
To this complaint the defendant Merrill interposed a general demurrer, which was sustained by Wilkin, J., and the plaintiff appealed.
Order affirmed.
Charles N. Bell, for appellant.
Williams & Davidson and Gilman, Clough & Lane, for respondent Merrill.
With the wisdom or policy of the statute under consideration courts have rightfully no concern. The remedy for injudicious legislation rests with the legislature where, it is supposed, it may be more safely left than with the courts, mainly because of the corrective influence which the people constantly exercise through frequent elections over that department of their government. To the judiciary belongs the more restricted duty of passing upon the validity of legislative enactments, as being within or without the boundaries assigned to the law-making power by constitutional law. The sole inquiry, therefore, in this, as in every other case of this character, respects the extent of legislative authority, under the federal and state constitutions, over the subject-matter of the statute which is impugned because of its alleged invalidity. In the prosecution of this inquiry, it must always be remembered that under the American systems of government, the people are recognized as possessing in their primary organized capacity the absolute and complete power of legislation as fully and to the same extent as belongs to every uncontrolled sovereignty; that in the organization of the federal and state systems of government, they have conferred upon the former, by the constitution of the United States, exclusive legislative power in respect to certain matters, and prohibited its exercise in respect to others, and that, save as thus conferred or forbidden, they have in this state entrusted with the legislative department which they have created, the whole power of making laws which they originally possessed, subject only to such restrictions and limitations upon its exercise as they have prescribed in the state constitution. Plenary legislative power is, therefore, the rule, while want of it is the exception. As a sequence it logically follows that every statute duly passed by the state legislature is presumably valid, and this presumption is conclusive unless it affirmatively appears to be in conflict with some provision of the federal or state constitution; and in order to justify a court in pronouncing it invalid, because of its violation of some clause of the state constitution, its repugnancy therewith must be so "clear, plain and palpable," as to leave no reasonable doubt or hesitation upon the judicial mind. Ames v. Lake Sup. & Miss. R. Co., 21 Minn. 241; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 3 L.Ed. 162; People v. Draper, 15 N.Y. 532; Cooley Const. Lim. 87, 164, 175; Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 147.
Conceding therefore, to the fullest extent, the contention of plaintiff that the powers assumed by the state under the provisions of the statute in question, in prescribing what kind of text-books shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial