Wall v. St. Louis Cnty.

• Citation: 117 N.W. 611,105 Minn. 403
• Parties: WALL v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY et al.
• Decision Date: 28 August 1908
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

105 Minn. 403

117 N.W. 611

WALL

v.ST. LOUIS COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 28, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Wm. A. Cant, Judge.

Suit of Whitney Wall against St. Louis county and others. From an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Brown, J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

The financial condition of counties as shown by the relation between bonded indebtedness and the assessed valuation of property, is a proper basis for classification for the purpose of legislation with reference to the increase of indebtedness by the issue of bonds without a popular vote.

Chapter 130, p. 143, Gen. Laws 1907, is constitutional. M. Douglas, for appellant.

John H. Norton, Co. Atty., and William J. Stevenson, First Asst. Co. Atty., for respondents.

ELLIOTT, J.

This is an appeal from an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint in an action to enjoin the county of St. Louis and its officials from issuing bonds under the authority of chapter 130, p. 143, Gen. Laws 1907, for the construction of the county courthouse. The question presented is the constitutionality of the statute; the appellant contending that it is special legislation, and the respondent that it is a general law based upon a proper classification of counties. The facts which the respondent claims authorize the issue of the bonds are very fully stated in the complaint. It appears that the present courthouse and grounds are inadequate and insufficient to accommodate the public business, and that the county has purchased a site for a new building and expended therefor the sum of $446,328.30. The plans for the new building have been drawn and accepted, and under contracts which have been left for its construction the county has incurred obligations to the amount of $900,000. Not having sufficient funds available to meet these obligations, the county commissioners at a meeting held on May 22, 1908, passed a resolution authorizing and directing the borrowing of $600,000 and the issue of the obligations of the county therefor. The county auditor was proceeding to sell the bonds in the manner provided by the act when this action was brought by a taxpayer.

If chapter 130, Gen. Laws 1907, is valid, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer. The county commissioners are charged by law with the duty of providing a suitable courthouse and jail, and are authorized under certain conditions to borrow money for that purpose. Rev. Laws 1905, §§ 412, 430, 784. It is provided that counties shall not issue bonds for such purposes without the approval first obtained of a majority of the voters of the county. Rev. Laws 1905, § 784. But the Legislature may remove this restriction, and authorize the proper county authorities to borrow money to pay for the construction and equipment of public buildings, and issue bonds or other evidences of indebtedness therefor, without submitting the question to a vote of the people. 11 Cyc. 556, note 1; Jewel v. Weed, 18 Minn. 272 (Gil. 247); Hetland v. Board, 89 Minn. 492, 494, 95 N. W. 305;Dallas Co. v. McKenzie, 110 U. S. 686, 4 Sup. Ct. 184, 28 L. Ed. 285. The people then act through their duly elected representatives, instead of directly by means by a referendum. The only restriction which exists upon the power of the Legislature in this respect is found in the constitutional requirement that the Legislature shall act through general, instead of special, laws. In this instance the legislative authority for the issuance of the bonds is found in chapter 130, Gen. Laws 1907, which provides: ‘That the board of county commissioners of any county in this state having property therein of an assessed valuation of not less than one hundred million dollars and having a bonded indebtedness of not more than seven hundred thousand dollars, is hereby authorized and empowered to borrow money sufficient in their judgment to complete, erect and furnish a court house, jail and other county buildings previously duly authorized, such sums of money not exceeding six hundred thousand dollars as may be sufficient in their judgment in addition to the moneys available for that purpose to so complete, erect and furnish such buildings or building, or any smaller sum, and for such purpose to issue interestbearing certificates of indebtedness of such county pursuant to the provisions of this act.’ Ever since the passage of this statute the assessed valuation of the taxable property in St. Louis county has been greater than $100,000,000 and the total bonded indebtedness of the county less than $700,000.

The constitutional provision which forbids special legislation should be so construed as to accomplish the purposes which the people had in mind when they adopted it. They never intended to render necessary and proper legislation impossible. They did intend to remove certain evils which had grown up under the system of special legislation. Either an excessively strict or liberal construction of the Constitution and statutes would defeat such intention. One would accomplish nothing; the other would put the ship of state in stays. A fair and reasonable construction in the light of established principles has practically eliminated the evils, and yet left the Legislature with reasonable and effective freedom of action. If it were necessary that every law should apply to every person and every thing within the jurisdiction of the state, legislation would practically stop. The propriety of classification of the subject-matter of legislation was understood when the constitutional provision was adopted and was recognized and extended so far as cities are concerned by a later provision of the Constitution. The principles which govern and control such classification have been so frequently announced by this court as to render further statement thereof unnecessary. State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402, 106 N. W. 477 (where the previous cases are reviewed); Hunter v. Tracy (June 5, 1918) 116 N. W. 922. The classification adopted in this statute is based upon the financial condition of the county, as determined by the relation between its indebtedness and the assessed valuation of its property. The subject-matter of the legislation is the increase of such indebtedness and the issue of bonds by the county officials without the vote of the people upon the particular question. The reference in the statute to the previous authorization of the construction of the building is not an element in the classification. This appears with reasonable clearness from the context, and also from its entire omission from the title of the act, which makes the statute applicable ‘in counties in this state having property of an assessed valuation of not less than one hundred million dollars and having a bonded indebtedness of not more than seven hundred thousand dollars.’ The authority conferred by the statute is to borrow money and issue bonds to erect or complete buildings, the construction of which has been duly authorized by the proper authorities before the money is borrowed and the bonds issued. It determines the order of events, and prevents the county from borrowing money and issuing bonds for the construction of public buildings which have not been,...