State ex. rel. Nash v. Madson
| Decision Date | 09 June 1890 |
| Citation | 45 N.W. 856,43 Minn. 438 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, ex. rel. W. C. Nash, v. Christian Madson |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Mandamus, brought in the district court for Polk county, by the relator, treasurer of school-district No. 3, in that county, to compel the respondent, treasurer of the city of East Grand Forks, to pay over to him the sum of $ 3,710 received by respondent, as such city treasurer, in payment for licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors in the city. The relator appeals from an order of Mills, J quashing the writ.
Order reversed.
P. C Schmidt, for appellant.
H. Steenerson, for respondent.
The only question presented by this record which we need to consider at length, is whether section 6, c. 25, Sp. Laws 1889, is invalid and ineffectual because the subject thereof is not expressed in the title of the act, or because more than one subject is embraced in the law. It is entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the city of East Grand Forks in Polk county,' approved March 7, 1887," and the respondent's claim is that it is repugnant to the provisions of section 27, art. 4, of the state constitution, -- an article which has been discussed and passed upon by this court time and time again.
Section 6, involved in this litigation, reads as follows: " It will be noticed upon examination of the law of which chapter 25, supra, was amendatory, (Sp. Laws 1887, c. 45, -- the original act incorporating the city of East Grand Forks,) that subchapter 3 of the same is wholly devoted to other matters than licenses, or the regulation of the liquor traffic; that its last section is numbered 15, as is the amendment under discussion; and that the subject-matter of the section has no relevancy to that which precedes it, -- is quite as foreign to the subjects previously provided for as is the matter covered by the amendment. It will also be observed that, in the original enactment, no reference is made to school-districts or schools whatever, and also that no special disposition is made of the money which may be derived from the issuance of liquor licenses. Necessarily, it went into the city treasury for general purposes. In fact it is contended by counsel for the respondent that, had the original act contained the provision now complained of, it would have been unconstitutional for either of two reasons: First, because embracing more than one subject, namely, the subject of a municipal government and the maintenance of public schools in district No. 3; and secondly, because the subject of schools was not expressed in its title.
Whether an act of the legislature contains matter different from that which is expressed in the title, or refers to more than one subject-matter, is not at all times easy of solution, and it is extremely difficult [43 Minn. 440] -- is well-nigh impossible -- to lay down any general rule by which this can always be determined. None, except that in each case the real subject of the enactment in question, and whether the provision is properly germane to and is fairly expressed in the title, a liberal, rather than a strict rule of construction, in favor of the law, always being observed, has ever been attempted by this court in the numerous cases of this character which have heretofore been before it. There is no doubt in our minds but that this provision in reference to license-money could have been incorporated in the original act without violating the fundamental law of the state. The object of chapter 45, supra, as expressed in its title, was to create a municipal government for certain specified territory; and what valid objection could have been urged had the legislature therein provided for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial