Riedl, Charles A.

English

Marquette University Law School

Marquette Law ReviewVolume 16Issue 1 November 1931 Article 6Constitutional Law - Municipal Corporations -Uniform LawsCharles A. RiedlFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulrPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inMarquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contactmegan.obrien@marquette.edu.Repository CitationCharles A. Riedl, Constitutional Law - Municipal Corporations - Uniform Laws, 16 Marq. L. Rev. 56 (1931).Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol16/iss1/6CASE NOTESCONSTITUTIONAL LAW - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - UNIFORMLAWS. In Breckenridge, et al. v. City of Watertown, 237 N.W. 139,the plaintiffs were owners of agricultural lands lying within the Cityof Watertown and they sought to have their land detached from theCity of Watertown and annexed to the Town of Watertown as pro-vided for in Stat. 62.075. Upon the verdict being for the plaintiffs theCity of Watertown appealed.The language of the statute in question, namely, "When land usedfor agricultural purposes of an area of 200 acres or more * * * shallhave been within the corporate limits of such city (of the fourth class)for twenty years or more * * * ," shows on its face that it is speciallegislation. The statute arbitrarily selects a class and gives certainmembers of that class a right which is denied to all other membersof that class. The state Supreme Court rightly declared this legislationto be unconstitutional in that Article 1, Section 1 and 22 of the Wis-consin Constitution condemn laws which grant privileges to a favoredclass.With due deference to the Supreme Court, the reviewer desires toraise a point which the Supreme Court did not mention, namely, thatthis legislation is unconstitutional because it is contrary to Article 4,Section 31, Subsection 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which prohibitsthe legislature "from enacting any special or private laws * * * for in-corporating any city, town, or village or amending the charter thereof."It is evident that Stat. 62.075 is an attempted amendment of the char-ters of the cities of the fourth class. The language of the statute is con-sistently in the past tense, and "where the language used is plain thecourt can not read words into it which are not found therein eitherexpressly or by fair implication even to save its constitutionality,because this would be legislation and not construction." Mellen Lum-ber Co. v. Industrial Commission, 154 Wis. 114: Rogers-Ruger Co. v.Murray, 115 Wis. 267.One then is justified in saying that the legislature enacted a statutefor a closed class. By the very wording of the statute there is not suffi-cient elasticity to have it apply to cities of the fourth class which mightcome into existence in the future. "That is not classification whichmerely designates one county in the commonwealth and makes noprovision by which any other county may, by reason of its increase ofpopulation in the future, come within the class." Commonwealth v.Patton, 88 Pa. St. 258. On August 3, 1929 when this statute was pub-lished and took effect one could ascertain with certainty what citieswere in the fourth class. "The effect of the act would have been pre-cisely the same if the city had been designated by name instead of theCASE NOTEScircumlocution employed." State, ex rel. v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592.The Wisconsin Constitution, in common with many other states, inArticle 4, Section 32, declares that general laws must be enacted, andthat they shall be uniform in their operation throughout the state. "Astatute would not be constitutional * * * which should select particularindividuals for a class or locality and subject them to peculiar rules,or impose upon them special obligations or burdens from which othersin the same class or locality are exempt. * * * Every one has a rightto demand that he be governed by general rules, and a special statutewhich, without his consent, singles his case out as one to be regulatedby a different law from that which is applied in all similar cases wouldnot be legitimate legislation, but would be such an arbitrary mandateas is not within the province of free government." Cooley Constitu-tional Limitations, 391.In Johnson v. City of Milwaukee, 88 Wis. 383, at 390-2 the courtlist8 certain well established rules by which the propriety of the classifi-cation may be tested. "One rule is: All classification must be basedupon substantial distinctions which make one class really different fromanother * * * . Another rule is: The classification adopted must begermane to the purpose of the law * * * . Another rule is: The classi-fication must not be based upon existing circumstances only * * *Another rule is: To whatever class a law may apply, it must apply toeach member thereof * * * ." Adams v. Beloit, 105 Wis. 363: State,ex rel. Risch v. Trustees, 121 Wis. 44; State, ex rel. Morgan v. Dorn-brook, 188 Wis. 426. In applying these rules to the instant case, onecannot help but come to the conclusion that the statute in question wasspecial legislation. The constitutional provisions (Art. 4, Sec. 31, 32)are certainly free from ambiguity. The language is plain, simple, directand commanding. It expressly prohibits the legislature from enactingany special laws for the amendment of charters of cities. Since thelegislature attempted to do this very thing in Section 62.075, the statuteis of necessity unconstitutional.CHARLES A. RIEDL.CRIMINAL LAW-JURISDICTION-INDIANS. State v. Rufus, (Wis.)237 N.W. 67. Fifty years ago, in a prosecution by the state of anIndian for adultery committed on an Indian reservation, the Wiscon-sin Supreme Court decided that the state courts had jurisdiction ofviolations by Indians of state criminal statutes. State v. Doxtater, 47Wis. 278. In this case the court recognized only two possible limitationswhich might be imposed on such jurisdiction: existing treaties withthe Indians, and acts admitting the state into the union. It was held,

Constitutional Law - Municipal Corporations - Uniform Laws

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4131&amp;context=mulr

Constitutional Law - Municipal Corporations - Uniform Laws

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Marquette University Law School