State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. of City of Minneapolis v. Brown

• Decision Date: 09 March 1906
• Citation: 106 N.W. 477,97 Minn. 402
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS et al. v. BROWN, City Comptroller.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

97 Minn. 402

106 N.W. 477

STATE ex rel. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS et al.

v.BROWN, City Comptroller.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 9, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Frank C. Brooks, Judge.

Action by the state, on the relation of the board of education of the city of Minneapolis and others, against Daniel C. Brown, city comptroller of the city of Minneapolis. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Chapters 76 and 77, pp. 93, 94, Gen. Laws 1905, legalizing school bonds heretofore voted upon by cities for high school and graded school houses, under the provisions of chapter 204, p. 333, Gen. Laws 1893, and acts amendatory thereto, are curative acts, and are not special legislation in conflict with sections 33 and 34 of article 4 of the Constitution of the state. Frank Healy, for appellant.

Belden, Haw ley & Jamison, for respondents.

ELLIOT, J.

The city of Minneapolis, pursuant to chapter 204, p. 333, Gen. Laws 1893, as amended by chapter 128, p. 281, Laws 1895, submitted to the voters at the general election in November, 1904, two propositions, one for the issuance of $100,000 of school bonds for graded school buildings and additions to graded school buildings, and the other for the issuance of $100,000 of bonds for high school buildings and additions to high school buildings. Neither proposition received a two-thirds majority of all the legal voters present and voting at the election, as required by chapter 204, p. 333, Laws 1893. State v. Hugo, 84 Minn. 81, 86 N. W. 784. In 1905 the Legislature passed two acts known as chapters 76 and 77, pp. 93, 94, of the Laws of 1905. One of these statutes provided in effect that all bonds theretofore voted by any city for graded school buildings and additions to graded school houses, and the other that all bonds theretofore voted upon by any city for any high school buildings and additions to high school houses, under and pursuant to chapter 204, p. 333, Laws 1893, and the amendments thereto, should be, when issued and sold, legal obligations of such cities, provided the proposition to issue said bonds received a two-thirds majority of all the votes cast upon the respective propositions. The city proceeded to issue the bonds in question under the authority of these acts, but the city comptroller refused to sign the bonds, and application was made to the district court for the issuance of a writ of peremptory mandamus. The writ issued, and from the judgment entered thereon this appeal is taken.

The appeal presents the single question of the constitutionality of chapters 76 and 77, pp. 93, 94, Laws 1905. The proposition to issue the bonds to raise money for the construction of necessary school buildings was submitted to the voters in the city of Minneapolis at the general election in November, 1904. While it received more than two-thirds of the votes of all who voted upon the proposition to issue the bonds, the aggregate vote in its favor did not amount to two-thirds of the number of those who voted at the election. But the Legislature of 1905, influenced undoubtedly by the fact that the wishes of the people of Minneapolis had been clearly explessed in favor of the issuance of the bonds, and with full knowledge of the conditions which rendered the issue of such bonds desirable and necessary, removed the restriction imposed by the act of 1903, and legalized and authorized the issue of the bonds without compliance with one of the conditions imposed by the original enabling statute. Chapter 76, p. 93, Gen. Laws 1905, is entitled: ‘An act legalizing school bonds heretofore voted upon by cities for graded school buildings and additions to graded school houses under the provisions of chapter 204 of the General Laws of the state of Minnesota for the year 1893 and acts amendatory thereof.’ Section 1 of the act provided ‘That all school bonds heretofore voted upon by any city for graded school buildings and additions to graded school houses, under or pursuant to the provisions of chapter 204 of the General Laws of the state of Minnesota for the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three (1893), as amended by chapter 128 of the General Laws of the state of Minnesota for the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five (1895), and other acts amendatory thereof, are hereby declared to be, when issued and sold, legal and binding obligations of said city; providing that the proposition to issue said bonds received a two-thirds majority of all the votes cast upon the proposition to issue said bonds at the election when said proposition was voted upon; and provided further that all other requirements of law have been fully complied with.’ Chapter 77, p. 94, is in the same language, except that it purports to legalize bonds theretofore voted upon for high school buildings and additions to high school houses. It is now contended that both chapters 76 and 77 are special legislation and invalid under sections 33 and 34 of article 4 of the Constitution of the state, because the classification upon which they rest is arbitrary, illusive, and restrictive. More specifically it is contended that the acts are special because: (a) They do not include bonds of all kinds, one being limited to high school bonds and the other to graded school bonds; (b) they are limited to those cities wherein at the election a two-thirds majority of the votes of those voting upon the proposition was obtained in favor of the issuance of the bonds; and (c) they classify cities that have voted for the issuance of bonds under the 1893 law as amended.

Neither upon principle nor precedent should these statutes be treated as special legislation. They are remedial, curative acts, and apply to all subjects of legislation which are within the conditions and subject to the evils sought to be remedied. They resemble statutes which cure and make valid all deeds which were defectively executed or acknowledged. The matters classified by these acts are improperly and defectively authorized school bonds, and the acts apply to all bonds of the kind which come within the conditions. The two statutes might possibly have been as well consolidated into one, but the general policy of the state has been to keep high schools and graded schools in different classes for legislative purposes. We treat them as one statute. The Legislature had imposed extremely onerous and impracticable conditions upon the issue of such bonds, and unsuccessful attempts had been made to comply with the conditions. A vote had been taken upon school bonds only, and more than two-thirds of the voters who were intelligent enough to be interested had voted for the bonds. The whole matter was under the control of the Legislature, and bonds could only be issued by its authority and upon the terms by it prescribed. It could impose or waive conditions; it could ratify what it could at the time authorize. In 1905 it had the power to authorize the issue of school bonds upon a two-thirds vote or a mere majority vote of those who voted upon the proposition. The only limitation in this respect was upon the manner of legislative action. It appeared to the Legislature that the conditions were such as to require remedial legislation, and we are satisfied that the statutes enacted by it for this purpose are not in violation of the constitutional prohibitions. The only serious question is whether the basis of classification is proper and reasonable.

1. The subject of special legislation has been so frequently before the court since the adoption of the several constitutional amendments that the principles by which acts of the Legislature of this character are tested should be fairly well recognized and understood. In considering the constitutionality of such statutes it is necessary to bear in mind the established rule that every statute enacted by the Legislature of the state is presumed to be the result of the exercise of its constitutional right to enact legislation. Every presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of a regularly enacted statute, and the courts will hold a statute unconstitutional only when satisfied after the most careful consideration that it is in conflict with some provision of the state or national Constitution which is binding upon the Legislature and courts alike. We must also remember the purposes for which the constitutional amendments were adopted, and construe them and the statutes enacted thereunder in the light of these purposes and the evils which it was sought to remedy. Special and local legislation in many states had become an efficient means for the easy enactment of laws for the advancement of personal rather than public interests. State v. Village of Cloquet, 52 Minn. 9, 53 N. W. 1016;Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342;Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. 322, 5 Atl. 739;Ayar's Appeal, 122 Pa. 266, 16 Atl. 356,2 L. R. A. 577; and Mr. Binney's article in 32 Am. Law Reg. 613. It encouraged the reprehensible practice of trading and ‘logrolling,’ and induced members to become indifferent to legislation which in the aggregate was detrimental to the commonwealth in order to secure the assistance of other members in the enactment of laws in which their personal local constituencies alone were concerned. The extent of such legislation was so great that the people finally adopted the various amendments to the Contitution which prohibit special legislation in certain cases, but it is fair to assume that they did not intend to put a straight jacket upon a growing young commonwealth. As said by a learned and discriminating writer: ‘While the absence of all restriction upon special or local legislation is unquestionably a serious evil, yet the absolute or nearly absolute prohibition produces in its turn results which are far from satisfactory. That this is inevitable is clear from the fact that such legislation, when properly regulated and employed, is not only...