State ex rel. v. Brill

• Decision Date: 01 April 1907
• Docket Number: Nos. 15,099-(208).,s. 15,099-(208).
• Parties: STATE ex rel. EDWARD T. YOUNG v. HASCAL R. BRILL and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

100 Minn. 499

STATE ex rel. EDWARD T. YOUNG v. HASCAL R. BRILL and Others.¹

Nos. 15,099-(208).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 1, 1907.

Order from the supreme court upon relation of Edward T. Young, attorney general, requiring Hascal R. Brill, William Louis Kelly, Olin B. Lewis, George L. Bunn, Grier Orr and Oscar Hallam, as judges of the Second judicial district of the state of Minnesota, to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not be issued commanding them to appoint a member of the board of control of Ramsey county. Respondents' motion to quash the information, to discharge the order and to dismiss the proceedings granted.

Edward T. Young, Attorney General, C. S. Jelley, Assistant Attorney General, and Durment & Moore, for relator.

Charles E. Otis and W. H. Lightner, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The relator, the attorney general of the state, applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the judges of the district court of the Second judicial district of the state to appoint of member of the board of control of Ramsey county, as provided by Sp. Laws 1883, p. 189, c. 51. An order to show cause why the writ should not issue was made, and upon the return the respondents appeared and moved to discharge the order and dismiss the proceedings upon the ground that the statute which assumed to impose the duty of making such appointment is unconstitutional and void, because it imposes upon the judiciary duties and functions which are not judicial and which belong to another department of the government of the state.

We are satisfied that Sp. Laws 1883, p. 189, c. 51, in so far as it requires the judges of the district court to appoint the members of the board of control, is unconstitutional. The order is therefore discharged, and the proceedings dismissed. An opinion will be filed hereafter.

On April 12, 1907, the following opinion was filed:

ELLIOTT, J.

In 1872 the legislature enacted a special law, entitled "An act to authorize the county of Ramsey and city of St. Paul to issue bonds to build an almshouse and hospital and for other purposes."² It provided for the erection, maintenance, and operation of an almshouse and hospital at the joint expense of the city and county, and placed them under the control of three directors, who were to be appointed by the board of county commissioners and the common council of the city. These directors were given the usual powers of executive and administrative officers, and were charged with the "duties now enjoined upon the overseers of the poor by the general statutes of the state." In the following year the original act was so amended as to provide for the erection of a hospital separate from the almshouse, but both institutions were left under the control of the directors. Chapter 45, p. 233, Sp. Laws 1873. In 1876 another statute provided that these directors, who were then referred to as the "board of control," should be citizens and freeholders of the county of Ramsey. Chapter 77, p. 154, Sp. Laws 1876. In 1883 the method of appointing the members of this board was changed, and it was provided that "the judges of the district court of the Second (2d) judicial district, county of Ramsey, state of Minnesota, or a majority of them, are hereby authorized and empowered at any time they may deem proper, to appoint three (3) directors, citizens and freeholders of said county of Ramsey, who shall constitute the board of control of said county and each shall hold his appointment at the pleasure of the authority appointing them." Sp. Laws 1883, p. 192, c. 54. At the same session of the legislature this act was amended by adding the words: "Provided, that the terms of office of the three (3) directors as constituted by this act, shall expire on the first (1st) day of July, (1883) and thereupon the said judges of the district court shall appoint one (1) director for the term of one (1) year, (1) one director for the term of two (2) years, and one (1) director for the term of three (3) years, and thereafter as such terms expire, the directors shall be appointed for the term of three (3) years and it is hereby required that the auditor of Ramsey county and the comptroller of the city of St. Paul shall each examine the books and affairs of the said board of directors and make a full report thereon to the board of county commissioners of Ramsey county and the common council of the city of St. Paul, respectively, at least once each year." Sp. Laws 1883, p. 189, c. 51. The almshouse and hospital which were erected under the authority conferred by these statutes have been managed by the directors or so-called "board of control," who have also performed the usual duties of overseers of the poor.

From time to time the judges of the district court made certain appointments under the statutes, but now refuse to fill a vacancy which has occurred in the board, for the reason, as alleged, that the statute originally and as amended is unconstitutional, because it attempts to confer powers and impose duties other than judicial upon the judiciary. The relator, the attorney general of the state, presented an information to this court and prayed that a writ of mandamus issue commanding the judges of the district court to fill the vacancy now existing in the board of control of Ramsey county. An order to show cause was thereupon issued, and upon the return day the respondents appeared and moved to discharge the order and dismiss the action on the ground that the several acts of the legislature referred to in the information, so far as they, or any of them, purport to confer or impose upon the respondents the duty of appointing the members or directors of the said board of control, are unconstitutional. The relator contends that the duties imposed by these statutes are judicial in character; that, even if they are not judicial, they may properly be imposed upon the courts by the legislature without violating any constitutional provision; that the legislature may require the members of the judicial department of the state government to perform any services which will not interfere with the proper exercise of the powers which are expressly conferred upon them by the constitution; and that no distinction in this respect is made between judicial and nonjudicial functions. The argument is plausible, and is urged with ability and ingenuity.

1. The question involved in this case is of such importance that we feel justified in stating the history of the doctrine of the separation of powers, and examining with some care and at considerable length the cases in which it has been considered.

(a) The tendency to sacrifice established principles of constitutional government in order to secure centralized control and high efficiency in administration may easily be carried so far as to endanger the very foundations upon which our system of government rests. That system, devised and elaborated with infinite care and wide knowledge of history and political theory, rests upon certain conceded fundamental principles. The structure which was erected is not simple. It is complex; the parts interrelated and dependent. It was deliberately framed and adopted for the purpose of effecting a change from the system which prevailed on the continent of Europe and to a certain extent in the colonies, and which had earnest and skilful advocates among political writers such as John Milton in England, Turgot in France, and Franklin in America, who argued for a sovereign legislative body, in which all political power should be vested. But the people were not willing to trust everything to a single person or collection of persons. They had heard that a wise and benevolent despot is the best of all possible rulers, but they had learned that rulers are not always wise and benevolent. A single legislative body, with full control over executive and judicial action, was to their minds as full of possible danger as a single despotic ruler. They were unwilling to trust any man or body of men with the uncontrolled exercise of all the powers of government.

Constitution-making began with the states and culminated in the constitution of the nation. The idea that the powers of the government should be distributed among different bodies of men had taken possession of the minds of the statesmen and people of the formative period. They were familiar with the contrary theory, and with the works of the political writers in which such theories were advocated. But they believed, with Paley, that "the first maxim of a free state is that the law should be made by one set of men and administered by another; in other words, that the legislative and judicial character be kept separate. When these offices were united in the same person or assembly, particular laws are made for particular cases, springing oftentimes from particular motives and directed to private ends. Whilst they are kept separate, general laws are made by one body of men without foreseeing whom they may affect; and, when made, they must be applied by the other, let them affect whom they will." They had read in Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws that "when the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or in the same body of magistrates there can be no liberty. * * * Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subjects would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end of everything were the same man or the same body * * * to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions and of trying the causes of individuals." Their Blackstone taught them that "in this distinct and separate existence of the judicial power in a peculiar body...