State ex rel. v. Sutton

• Decision Date: 12 December 1895
• Docket Number: Nos. 9692-(110).,s. 9692-(110).
• Citation: 63 Minn. 147
• Parties: STATE ex rel. H. W. CHILDS, Attorney General, v. JOHN B. SUTTON.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

63 Minn. 147

STATE ex rel. H. W. CHILDS, Attorney General, v. JOHN B. SUTTON.¹

Nos. 9692-(110).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 12, 1895.

Quo warranto. Judgment of ouster.

H. W. Childs, Attorney General, and George B. Edgerton, for relator.

Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

At the general state election held November 6, 1894, the respondent, John B. Sutton, was elected to the office of representative of the Twenty-Third legislative district for the term commencing on the first Monday of January, 1895, and ending on the first Monday of January, 1897. Pursuant to such election, he duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such member at the commencement of the session for the year 1895, and in that capacity served until May 2 of that year, when he resigned his office as such member. The legislative session during which he served as a member terminated prior to his resignation. On May 4, 1895, Sutton was appointed to the public office of inspector of boilers for the Fourth congressional district in this state, which office is one of great public importance and responsibility, it having been created by an act of the legislature prior to Sutton's election as a member thereof. Upon his appointment to the office of inspector of boilers, Sutton qualified and entered upon the performance of the duties of the office, and as such officer he has continued to and now occupies and holds said office, claiming the right so to do by virtue of his appointment. This proceeding is by a writ of quo warranto to oust and exclude the respondent, Sutton, from further acting as such inspector of boilers, upon the ground that he is prohibited by the constitution from holding such office until the expiration of the time for which he was elected as representative.

The clause relied upon by the attorney general to sustain his contention is article 4, § 9, of the constitution, and reads as follows: "No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he is elected, hold any office under the authority of the United States, or the state of Minnesota, except that of postmaster; and no senator or representative shall hold an office under the state, which had been created, or the emoluments of which had been increased during the session of the legislature of which he was a member, until one year after the expiration of his term of office in the legislature."

In treating of constitutional provisions, we believe it is the general rule among courts to regard them as mandatory, and not to leave it to the will or pleasure of a legislature to obey or disregard them. Where the language of the constitution is plain, we are not permitted to indulge in speculation concerning its meaning, nor whether it is the embodiment of great wisdom. A constitution is intended to be framed in brief and precise language, and represents the will and wisdom of the constitutional convention, and that of the people who adopt it. It stands, not only as the will of the sovereign power, but as security for private rights, and as a barrier against legislative invasion. It has been well said that "the constitution, which underlies and sustains the social structure of the state, must be beyond being shaken or affected by unnecessary construction, or by the refinements of legal reasoning." People v. Rathbone, 145 N. Y. 434, 40 N. E. 395.

The rule with reference to constitutional construction is also well stated by Johnson, J., in the case of Newell v. People, 7 N. Y. 9, 97, as follows: "If * * * the words embody a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity, and no contradiction between different parts of the same writing, then that meaning apparent upon the face of the instrument is the one which alone we are at liberty to say was intended to be conveyed. In such a case there is no room for construction. That which the words declare is the meaning of the instrument; and neither courts nor legislature have the right to add to or take away from that meaning. This is true of every instrument, but when we are speaking of the most solemn and deliberate of human writings, — those which ordain the fundamental law of states, — the rule rises to a very high degree of significance. It must be very plain — nay, absolutely certain — that the people did not intend what the language they have employed in its natural signification imports, before a court will feel itself at liberty to depart from the plain reading of a constitutional provision."

In the case at bar it is not necessary for us to speculate upon the intention of the framers of the constitution in adopting the provision in question. A bare reading of this provision suffices to enable us to ascertain and understand its meaning, and we need not search for light through the uncertainties of extraneous interpretation or construction. It is a part of the organic law of the state that no senator or representative shall, during the time for which he is elected, hold any office under the authority of the state of Minnesota. Is there any uncertainty or ambiguity about this language? Has it any of the characteristics which demand a construction to be placed upon it by the judiciary of this state, other than that which is transparent from the language itself?

The respondent, Sutton, became a representative of the legislature of the state of Minnesota on the first Monday...