State ex rel. v. Pioneer Press Co.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1896
• Docket Number: Nos. 10,330 - (46).,s. 10,330 - (46).
• Citation: 66 Minn. 536
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. H. W. CHILDS, Attorney General, v. PIONEER PRESS COMPANY and Another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 536

66 Minn. 536

STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. H. W. CHILDS, Attorney General, v. PIONEER PRESS COMPANY and Another.¹

Nos. 10,330 - (46).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 21, 1896.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Willis, J., dissolving an injunction against defendants, and sustaining their demurrer to the complaint. Affirmed.

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

John B. & E. P. Sanborn, for respondents.

Wm. Watts also filed a brief.

START, C. J.

The state of Minnesota, by this action, sought to restrain the several defendants from receiving from the state treasurer pay for publishing, pursuant to the provisions of Laws 1893, c. 143,² the proclamations of the governor relating to the formation of several proposed new counties out of the territory now comprising the county of Polk, on the ground that the law under which the propositions for the creation of the new counties are to be submitted is, as amended by Laws 1895, c. 124, unconstitutional. The defendants demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was sustained, and from the order the state appealed.

The act in question is a general law providing for the creating and organization of new counties. It provides that whenever a petition for the creation of a new county is presented to the secretary of state he shall file the same, and the governor, auditor, and secretary of state shall meet and consider the petition, and, if it is found to conform to the law, they shall so certify, and thereupon the governor shall issue his proclamation directing the proposition to be submitted to the voters of the county or counties to be affected thereby. It further provides that, if any such proposition receives a majority of the votes cast thereon, it is adopted, and the new county created. It contains no limit to the propositions that may be submitted at the same election to the electors of the same county. The manner of giving notice of the election, and the method of voting thereon, are prescribed by section 4 of the act, which, as amended by Laws 1895, c. 124, reads thus:

"Sec. 4. At the time of giving notice of the next general election to be held after the issuing of the said proclamation by the governor it shall be the duty of the officers of the county or counties affected thereby, who are required to give notice of the election of officers therein, to give notice in like manner, that at said election a vote will be taken on the question of the creation of the proposed new county, or counties, stating and specifying in said notice the boundaries of said proposed new county; the proposed location of the county seat and the name of such proposed county; and the ballots for such general election shall, for each pending proposition of the kind, have printed thereon the words: `For the creation and organization of the proposed new county of (here insert the name of proposed county), Yes — No'; and each elector voting on such proposition or propositions to create and establish such new county or counties shall make a cross opposite the `Yes' or `No' as provided in section thirty-four of chapter four of the General Laws of Eighteen Hundred and Ninety-One. Provided, the electors shall only vote for or against one proposition, and if the elector places a cross mark opposite more than one such proposition, said ballot shall not be counted for any such proposition, but shall be as to such proposition null and void."

The only change made by the amendment was to add the proviso. If the proviso is valid, it is manifest that, where more than one proposition is submitted at the same election to the voters of the same county, and an elector votes for or against more than one of such propositions, his ballot cannot be counted either way on any one of the propositions, for in such a case his ballot would be void for uncertainty. He is prohibited...