State ex rel. Douglas v. Ritt
| Decision Date | 09 June 1899 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 11,722 - (228).,s. 11,722 - (228). |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. WALLACE B. DOUGLAS and Another v. GREGORY P. RITT. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
W. P. Westfall, for relators.
Samuel A. Anderson and George Walsh, for respondent.
This is a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto to determine the right to the office of assessor of Ramsey county. The relator Seng claims it by virtue of an appointment under the special laws set up in the information, and particularly Sp. Laws 1875, c. 90. The respondent, Ritt, claims it by virtue of an appointment under Laws 1899, c. 140. It is conceded that, if the act of 1899 is valid, Ritt is entitled to the office, but, on the other hand, if that act is invalid, Seng is entitled to it. Hence the only question presented is whether that act is constitutional.
Its validity is assailed on the ground that it is special legislation regulating the affairs of counties, in violation of sections 33 and 34 of article 4 of the constitution of the state, in that (a) the classification of counties by population in the manner provided by the act is arbitrary, and not appropriate to the subject of the legislation; and (b) that the act will not have uniform operation, for the reason that the provisions of section 6 cannot apply to future members of the class which may fall within it subsequent to the annual election in 1900. Section 1 of the act provides that
"There shall be elected in each county in this state, having a population of not less than 100,000 and not over 185,000 inhabitants, a county assessor, who shall hold his office for two years from and after the first Monday in January next succeeding his election," etc.
We have been over the whole subject of classification so often, particularly in Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264, 33 N. W. 800, and State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 58 N. W. 150, that it is unnecessary now to do more than restate two fundamental rules, viz.: First, that the basis of classification cannot be arbitrary or illusive, but must be founded upon such a substantial distinction, having reference to the subject-matter of the legislation, between the objects or places embraced in the subject of the legislation and the objects or places excluded, as suggests the necessity or propriety of different legislation for the two in respect to the matter which is the subject of the legislation; second, that the act must include, and act uniformly upon, all of the class, — that is, all whose conditions and wants render such legislation equally appropriate to them as a class. Judging from much recent legislation in this state, it would seem that the impression is prevalent that because classification on the basis of population may be proper for the purposes of legislation on certain subjects, therefore any classification on the basis of population is appropriate for the purposes of legislation on any subject. The sooner the minds of legislators and others are disabused of this erroneous impression, the better; for under any such rule the provisions of the constitution against special legislation would become wholly nugatory. If it is permissible to adopt for any and all purposes a classification founded upon any and every arbitrary and illusive basis of population, we might have as many acts, general in form, but special in fact, as there are counties, cities, villages, townships, wards, and school districts in the state.
It ought to be apparent to any one on a moment's reflection that under the rules above stated classification on the basis of population may be appropriate for one purpose, and not for another; that is, for legislation upon one subject, and not for legislation upon another. For example, a classification of counties or cities on the basis of population might be proper, as was held in State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial