Dayton v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 18 February 1876
• Citation: 22 Minn. 400
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: MARIA B. DAYTON <I>vs.</I> CITY OF ST. PAUL.

22 Minn. 400

MARIA B. DAYTONvs.

CITY OF ST. PAUL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 18, 1876.

Certiorari to the court of common pleas of Ramsey county, in which court a judgment had been rendered against certain land of the plaintiff for the amount of an assessment for a local improvement in the city of St. Paul. The sole ground on which it was sought to reverse the judgment was that the amendment to Const. art. 9, § 1, upon which depended the validity of Sp. Laws 1871, ch. 32, under which the proceedings were had which resulted in the judgment, was not properly ratified by the people, "because a majority of all the voters present and voting at the election at which the question of the adoption of such proposed amendment was voted upon, did not vote in favor of the adoption of the same."

Gilman, Clough & Lane, for plaintiff.

W. A. Gorman and Lorenzo Allis, for defendant.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The court below could have jurisdiction to proceed against the property in question only by virtue of acts of the legislature passed upon authority, withheld by the original constitution, but given to the legislature by the amendment to § 1, art. 9, of the constitution, adopted November 2, 1869; therefore, the validity of those acts, and of the amendment under which they were adopted, necessarily comes in question. Those acts are, so far as the questions raised in this case are concerned, valid, if that amendment is a part of the constitution; and whether it is a part of the constitution depends on this: Does art. 14, § 1, require that a proposed amendment shall, to be adopted, receive only a majority of the votes given upon the amendment, or, if it be submitted for the vote of the people at the same time and place when other matters or officers are voted for, must it receive a majority of all the voters who take part in voting for such other matters or officers?

The part of art. 14, § 1, bearing on the point reads as follows: "And if it shall appear, in a manner to be provided by law, that a majority of the voters present and voting shall have ratified such alterations or amendments, the same shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of this constitution."

The defendant claims that by reason of the words, "if it shall appear in the manner to be provided by law," and because the statutes provide that the two houses of the legislature shall canvass the votes, and declare the result of the vote, on a constitutional amendment, their declaration that an amendment has been adopted or rejected is conclusive. This proposition would make the judgment of the legislature, or of the officers or persons upon whom it might impose the duty of canvassing the votes, conclusive as to the meaning of the constitution. The words quoted refer only to the manner of giving the votes, of making the returns, of canvassing and announcing the votes, and by whom it shall be done. They do not contemplate that the legislature may itself put, or authorize any one else to put, a conclusive interpretation on the constitution. What that instrument means, and whether in the particular instance it has been complied...