State ex rel. Getchell v. O'Connor
Decision Date | 01 August 1900 |
Docket Number | 12,240 - (270) |
Citation | 83 N.W. 498,81 Minn. 79 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. P. L. GETCHELL v. JOHN J. O'CONNOR |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Writ of quo warranto issued from the supreme court requiring defendant to show by what warrant he assumed to act as chief of police of the city of St. Paul and why relator should not be adjudged entitled to said office. Writ quashed.
Const art. 4, § 36, Construed -- Cities.
Section 36 of article 4 of the state constitution, as amended in 1898, construed, and held to apply to incorporated cities in existence at the time of its adoption, and not to cities to be thereafter incorporated.
Title of Act -- Proposed Amendment to Constitution.
Although a title to an act of the legislature proposing an amendment to the constitution is not necessary to the validity of the act, nevertheless the same may be looked to when construing and interpreting the section of the constitution to which it relates.
Laws 1899, c. 351 -- Constitution.
Laws 1899, c. 351, held valid and constitutional.
Const art. 4, § 36 -- Framing City Charters. Charters.
The provisions of section 36, article 4, of the constitution, requiring the legislature to prescribe limits within which cities may frame their own charters, is sufficiently complied with when the legislature prescribes and imposes in that behalf such restrictions and limitations as are deemed by that body expedient and proper. It is not necessary that the legislature prescribe a general framework for the city charter.
Charter of City of St. Paul.
The city charter of the city of St. Paul framed under and pursuant to Laws 1899, c. 351, and adopted May 1, 1900, by the qualified voters of such city, is valid, and became upon such adoption the law for the government of such city.
Chief of Police.
Held, further, that relator is not entitled to the office of chief of police of said city, having been superseded by the appointment of respondent under the provisions of such new charter.
E. E. McDonald, Walter L. Chapin and W. B. Douglas, Attorney General, for relator.
Laws 1895, c. 4, and Laws 1897, c. 280, being section 36 of article 4 of the constitution, apply to all the cities and villages of the state. This amendment to the constitution is a close copy of those of Missouri, California and Washington. Const. (Cal.) art. 11, § 8; Const. (Mo.) art. 9, § 16; Const. (Wash.) art. 11, § 10. In order that the power may be exercised, it is necessary in all of those states that the cities shall have been otherwise first incorporated. State v. Warner, 4 Wash. 773, 775. The title to an act proposing a constitutional amendment in no way modifies or limits the body of the act or amendment. Julius v. Callahan, 63 Minn. 154. The title of the act proposing the amendment to allow "cities already incorporated and villages desiring to become incorporated as cities" to frame, etc., will not bear the construction sought to be placed on it. The word "already" is used in contradistinction to "villages" not as yet incorporated as cities. Cities may still be incorporated under the general law. The amendment adopted in 1896 and the one adopted in 1898 had the same title; and, as regards the reference to the cities and villages to which it applied, contained the same wording. The legislature of 1897 placed its construction on the first amendment when it enacted Laws 1897, c. 255. That legislature understood that the first constitutional provision, which is the same as the second in this respect, applied to any city or village in this state without reference to when it was incorporated, and so framed the first enabling act. Laws 1897, c. 255, is an interpretation that the amendment covers all cities. The enabling act of 1897 must, under all rules of constitutional construction, be held bad as special legislation. It is held in Missouri that the constitution covers cities existing under general as well as special laws or charters, and that the charter to be superseded is the organic city law then existing whether by general or special law. State v. Field, 99 Mo. 352; Kansas City v. Marsh, 140 Mo. 458. The title of the act should not govern its construction. Where the intent is plain, and the language unambiguous, nothing is left for construction. U.S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358.
Laws 1899, c. 351, is special legislation and void, as it is limited to cities existing when Laws 1897, c. 280, was adopted. State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531; Burnham v. City, 98 Wis. 128; Kansas City v. Scarritt, 127 Mo. 642. It must appear when the law is passed that it will have a uniform operation throughout the state. State v. Copeland, 66 Minn. 315, 318. If it may in the future become unconstitutional, it is so when passed. Bowe v. City of St. Paul, 70 Minn. 341, 344. The classification must be based on some apparent natural reason. Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264. To be general it must embrace all and exclude none whose conditions and wants render such legislation necessary or appropriate to them as a class. State v. Wood, 49 N.J.L. 85, 88; State v. Sheriff of Ramsey Co., 48 Minn. 236. Laws 1897, c. 255, the enabling act under the first home-rule amendment, is inapplicable. The amendment adopted in 1898 abrogated the provisions of that adopted in 1896 and of the enabling act of 1897. Nichols v. Walter, supra; State v. Board of Co. Commrs., 66 Minn. 519. The enabling act is insufficient to sustain a charter, because it does not include a general framework delegating powers within the limits of which the charter should be framed.
Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.
Quo warranto proceedings to determine the right of respondent to the office of chief of police of the city of St. Paul.
The important question in the case is the constitutionality of Laws 1899, c. 351, the same being an act to authorize cities and villages to frame their own charters. Pursuant to this act due proceedings were had by the city of St. Paul, and a charter framed and adopted as provided thereby, under the provisions of which respondent was appointed chief of police. Relator held the office at the time of the adoption of the new charter and the appointment of respondent, and disputes and contests the right of the latter to the office on the ground that the act of the legislature aforesaid is unconstitutional and void, in consequence of which the new charter is a nullity. We come directly to the main question, without further statement as to the rights of the respective parties to the office in question.
Laws 1899, c. 351, pursuant to which the new charter of St. Paul was framed, was passed and enacted under section 36 of article 4 of the constitution of the state, as amended in 1898 (Laws 1897, c. 280). The relator assails the constitutionality of the act of the legislature on two grounds: (1) That it is unconstitutional and void because made to apply to cities in existence when the constitutional amendment was adopted, only; (2) that it is void because it fails to provide general limits within which to frame charters authorized thereby. The section of the constitution, so far as applicable to relator's first objection, reads as follows:
The act of the legislature, so far as here pertinent, reads:
It is the contention of relator that this act is void because limited and restricted to cities incorporated prior to the constitutional amendment, when, as he claims, the constitution applies to all cities, whenever incorporated. If this contention is sound, the charter must fall. It is sound if we read and construe section 36 of the constitution literally. Its language is that all cities may frame charters, while the act of the legislature provides that all cities incorporated prior to a given date may do so. Unless this limitation is warranted and justified by a proper construction of the constitution, the act must be declared void as special legislation. Respondent contends that the title to the act of the legislature proposing and submitting section 36 to the people as a constitutional amendment may be referred to in determining the intent of the legislature and of the people in adopting the amendment. The title to the act proposing the amendment to the constitution reads as follows:
"An act proposing an amendment to section 36 of article 4 of the constitution of the state of Minnesota, allowing cities already incorporated and villages desiring to be incorporated as cities, to frame their own charter as cities, and classifying cities for the purpose of general legislation."
The body of the act, the section of the constitution as proposed to be amended, provides that any city or village may frame a charter for its own government, and the authority there conferred is not confined or limited to those already incorporated. That the amended constitution was intended to apply to cities having an incorporated existence at the time of its adoption seems very clear to us.
In determining the intent of the amendment, reference may be had to the conditions surrounding the government of municipalities, and the history of general legislation with respect thereto. Church of Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 459, 12 S.Ct. 511; U.S. v. Union...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kinney v. Mathias
... ... the village of Wells, this state. On August 23, 1897, ... defendant Swenson entered into a contract with ... ...