State ex rel. Simpson v. City of Mankato
| Decision Date | 17 May 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,489 - (13) |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. GEORGE T. SIMPSON v. CITY OF MANKATO and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
As attorney general of the state, George T. Simpson petitioned this court for a writ of quo warranto, directed to the city of Mankato, Charles T. Taylor, Ben Bangerter, Jr., Lawrence Henline, J. D. Hunniston and Robert Lamm. The respondents made return that they were duly elected and qualified officers of respondent city, duly acting as such officers and discharging the duties of their respective offices. The reply admitted that respondents performed the duties required of them by the charter described in the petition, but denied they were performed by the sanction, acquiescence or approval of the state of Minnesota, or any of the people thereof. The court granted its writ. Writ quashed and respondents dismissed.
Constitution -- powers of the state legislature.
The provisions of a state Constitution do not confer any powers upon the legislature, but are mere limitations, and the legislature has all the powers of an absolute sovereign of which it has not been deprived by the Constitution.
Constitutionality of statute.
In determining the constitutionality of an act of the legislature, every intendment must be indulged in favor of its validity.
Constitution -- construction of its limitations.
Constitutional provisions being mere limitations, the question to be considered, in determining whether a particular act of the legislature violates a particular constitutional provision is not whether the people, in adopting such provision, had in mind the act of the legislature in question, and were attempting to authorize it, but whether, having in mind the possibility of some future attempt on the part of the legislature to enact such an act, they were attempting to frustrate it in advance.
Constitution -- distribution of powers -- municipal government.
The requirement of Const. art. 4, § 36, that home rule charters must provide for a "mayor or chief magistrate, and a legislative body," does not of itself import such a severance of the several departments of municipal government as to preclude the legislature from authorizing cities and villages to adopt the commission form of government, wherein the mayor is vested with legislative functions and the council is given other than legislative powers.
Constitution.
Const. art. 3, providing that the powers of government shall be divided into executive, legislative, and judicial, etc., does not apply to municipal governments; and neither its expressed intent nor its spirit can be read into Const. art. 4, § 36, so as to extend the limitation imposed by the latter on the form of municipal government, and thereby make it co-extensive with the limitation imposed by the former upon the form of state government.
Act constitutional.
Laws 1909, c. 170, authorizing cities and villages to adopt the commission form of government, held constitutional and valid.
Mankato city charter.
The Mankato city charter, which provides and establishes the commission form of government for the said city, is authorized by Laws 1909, c. 170, and does not transcend the constitutional limitations imposed upon the form of municipal government.
Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, Alonzo J. Edgerton, Assistant Attorney General, C. L. Benedict and Arthur Schaub, for relator.
C. O. Bailey, City Attorney, and Lorin Cray, for respondents.
This is a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto, on the relation of the attorney general, for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of the charter of the city of Mankato and the right of the other respondents to hold office thereunder. The admitted facts are as follows:
The city of Mankato has, for many years, been a municipal corporation of this state. In January, 1909, the district court of Blue Earth county duly appointed freeholders to frame a charter for the said city, pursuant to section 36 of article 4 of the Constitution, and under sections 748-758, R.L. 1905, and chapter 170, p. 181, Laws 1909. On April 26, 1910, a proposed charter, framed by the said freeholders, was duly submitted to and adopted by the electors of the said city. In April, 1911, an election was held under such charter, and the respondent Taylor was elected mayor and the other individual respondents were elected councilmen, and each of them has since discharged the duties of such offices. The said charter provides, among other things:
1. Department of public health, sanitation, police and general welfare.
2. Department of accounts and finances.
3. Department of parks, public grounds, buildings and fire protection.
4. Department of water works and sewers.
The relator contends that this charter does not comply with the provisions of section 36, article 4, of the state Constitution, and is void: (1) Because "the mayor, being the chief executive of the city, is made a member of the council, and is permitted to participate in all the legislative and other powers given to the council;" (2) because "the council, being the only legislative body provided for in said charter, contains also the mayor, the chief and only executive of the city provided thereby;" (3) because "the council of five members is given legislative, executive, and administrative duties and functions;" (4) because "the council is given other than purely legislative powers."
Section 36 of article 4 of the Constitution, above referred to, empowers cities and villages to frame charters for their own government "consistent with and subject to the laws of this state," and provides that "it shall be a feature of all such charters that there shall be provided, among other things, for a mayor or chief magistrate, and a legislative body of either one or two houses; if of two houses, at least one of them shall be elected by general vote of the electors." It further provides for the submission of such charter to the electors for ratification, and that before any city shall incorporate thereunder the legislature shall prescribe by law the general limits within which such charter shall be framed, but that such charter shall always be "in harmony with and subject to the Constitution and laws of the state." And finally it provides that "the legislature may provide general laws relating to affairs of cities * * * which * * * shall be paramount while in force to the provisions relating to the same matter included in the local charter herein provided for."
Sections 748 -- 758, R.L. 1905, provide the method of framing such charters by a board of freeholders and for their submission to the electors, and by Laws 1909, p. 181, c. 170, such board, when so appointed, are authorized and empowered, in addition to other powers theretofore granted them, to incorporate as a part of the proposed charter for any city the commission form of city government. By sections 3 and 4 [p. 182] of the last-mentioned act it is provided that the board of freeholders may distribute the administrative powers, and may prescribe the duties of the officers and incorporate in such charter provisions defining the powers and duties of the mayor and each member of the council, and may provide that each member of the council shall perform such administrative duties as may be designated in such charter.
Upon these constitutional and statutory provisions the relator predicates his...
To continue reading
Request your trial