the distribution of the proceeds among the different counties, but contains no restrictions upon the proportion of the cost of any project which the state may bear.

The provision last described is that under which the state highways have been developed since 1912. Although it has proved to be a great improvement over previous provisions, it has not given satisfaction. The tremendous increase in automotive traffic on the state highways has resulted in a greatly increased expense for upkeep with the result that little money has been left for new construction, except where counties have greatly increased their appropriations for that purpose. Furthermore, the demand is now for hardsurfaced rather than dirt or gravel roads. Hard-surfaced construction is, of necessity, more expensive than any other, and there is a consequent need of a more liberal provision in the state constitution if the state as such is to engage in building such roads. At the same time it is desirable to permit the state to raise adequate road funds, independent of the counties, to insure the receipt by the state of the very liberal federal aid which is now being provided for the building of post roads. 193 The present road and bridge fund is not adequate by itself for these purposes, and while counties may now raise money either by taxation or borrowing for the purpose of receiving federal aid, there is no assurance that they will do so either in sufficient amount or in such manner as to ensure the building of an adequate state road system. The 1919 legislature therefore proposed a new good roads amendment, to be voted upon in 1920. This amendment, embodying the so-called "Babcock plan," for a state trunk highway system, was adopted by a tremendous vote, and is now article 16 of the constitution.19 Logically it should be considered in connection with the road and bridge fund provision of article 9.

The amendments to article 9 which have been adopted have now been briefly reviewed. A word should be said also as to the proposed amendments which have been rejected. Three of these have related to the establishment of state hail insurance. They were proposed successively in 1907, 1909, and 1911, and rejected in the election following in each case.195 The proposal was the same in each instance and was stated in the following language:

The legislature may provide for the payment by the state of Minnesota of damages to growing crops by hail and wind, or either, and to provide a fund for that purpose, may impose a specific tax upon lands, the owners of which, at their option, have listed the same with the county authorities for that purpose, and no payment shall be made on any such damages except from the fund so provided.

Three other amendments have related to the encouragement of reforestation work in this state. Two of these proposals were submitted by the 1909 193 Stat. at Large, 39:355-59; 40:1200-1. These sentences were written early in 1920.

104 Sess. Laws 1919, ch. 530.

195 Ibid., 1907, ch. 479; 1909, ch. 508; 1911, ch. 391.

legislature to the voters in the 1910 election.196

One of these authorized a state tax of one fifteenth of one mill on each dollar of taxable property within the state, the proceeds of which were to be used for the purchase, at not over three dollars per acre, of lands better adapted for forestry than for agriculture. The work of reforestation was to be carried on under the supervision of the state forestry board and all the moneys accruing from the tax and from the sales of timber on all lands which were subsequently found better adapted for other purposes than for the production of timber were to constitute a permanent forestry fund. One of the unique clauses in this proposed amendment read as follows: "It shall be competent for two successive regular legislatures, by a two-thirds vote of each house, to repeal any of these provisions." Had this amendment become part of the constitution, it would have been subject to change not only by an amendment adopted by the people but by the legislature alone in the manner prescribed. The other forestry amendment proposed the same year provided as follows: "Laws may be enacted exempting lands from taxation for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the planting, cultivation and protection of useful forest trees thereon." The third of the forestry amendments was proposed in 1913 and differed from the two just described in that it provided for an annual bounty to be paid by the state "to any person who shall plant, cultivate and protect useful forest trees upon his own land." This annual bounty was to be limited to $2.50 per acre and was to be granted in each case for a term of not more than ten years, and no person was to receive this bounty upon more than ten acres of land. This amendment also failed.

On two occasions the legislature has submitted to the voters the question of repealing section II of article 9.197 This section requires the publication by the treasurer "in at least one newspaper printed at the seat of government," during the first week in January of each year, and in the next volume of the acts of the legislature, detailed statements of all moneys drawn from the treasury during the preceding year, for what purposes, and to whom paid, and by what law authorized, and also of all moneys received, and by what authority, and from whom." The publication of this report in this manner is an expensive matter and duplicates the biennial reports submitted to the legislature by the treasurer. Nevertheless the voters did not vote for the repeal in sufficient numbers to make it effective. In fact, however, the legislature has stopped publishing the treasurer's report with the session laws.

In 1913 the legislature proposed a special tax on dogs for the purpose of creating a fund to pay damages sustained by the owners of other domestic animals by reason of injuries caused by dogs. 198 This amendment was of course especially designed to assist the sheep-raising industry in this state. It was not adopted.

100 Ibid., 1909, ch. 510, 511. See also 1913, ch. 591.

107 Ibid., 1909, ch. 507; 1913, ch. 587.

108 Ibid., 1913, ch. 594.

In 1915 the legislature proposed an amendment to authorize the state legislature "to provide by law for the mining and sale of any iron ore, or other minerals which the state owns, in its sovereign capacity, and as a trustee for the people of the state, which are situated under the waters or bed of any meandered public lake or river," and authorized the drainage of such bodies of water or the diversion of the waters for that purpose.' 199 It was further provided that the income from the funds derived from the sale of such iron ore or other minerals should be used for the improvement and maintenance of public roads. The state is now, as a result of certain decisions of the supreme court, in the somewhat unusual position of being the undoubted owner of the ores under such public waters, but unable to engage in the development of these properties.200 An amendment similar to that described is therefore a very desirable one.

This

10. ARTICLE 10 OF CORPORATIONS HAVING NO BANKING PRIVILEGES. article applies to all corporations not having banking privileges, and the drafters seem to have believed that it might even apply to municipal corporations. Banks are of course covered by the provisions of section 13 of article 9. There have been five separate attempts to amend article 10 and all of them have related to the provisions in section 3. The original of this section was phrased as follows: "Each stockholder in any corporation shall be liable to the amount of stock held or owned by him." This was construed to mean a double liability, similar to that existing under national and state banking laws for the stockholders of banks. 201 This provision of the constitution was, therefore, in direct conflict with the ordinary doctrine regarding the liability of a stockholder in a corporation. As has been said by Cook in his treatise on corporations, "Probably the most characteristic feature of a corporate existence is the fact that by being a corporation, its stockholders are liable only for the par value of the stock held by them, and when that is once paid in money or property there is no further liability."202 In the circumstances it was only natural that corporations already organized in Minnesota and those who wished to be so organized, should desire relief from the constitutional provision as to liability, for that provision was self-executing and was enforced in the courts.203

The first effort to change the original section was made in 1870, at a time when it was desirable to stimulate the building of railroads in the state. The legislature proposed in that year an amendment to section 3 exempting stockholders in railroad corporations from the double liability attached to

100 Sess. Laws 1915, ch. 381.

200 Fraser, Title to the Soil under Public Waters, in Minn. Law Rev., 2:313, 429.

201 Willis v. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140; 50 N. W. 1110, (1892). See definitions p. 125, n. 30. 202 Cook, Treat. on Law of Corps., 6 ed., sec. 212, p. 539.

203 Dodge v. Minnesota Plastic Slate Roofing Co., 16 Minn. 368 (Gil. 327), (1871).

all other stockholders.204 The railroads, however, were not popular at the time and this amendment failed to carry.

Two years later another amendment was proposed, the purpose of which was to relieve the stockholders in corporations carrying on manufacturing or mechanical businesses from double liability.205 This amendment was adopted and it constitutes the present section 3 of this article. Double liability is now the rule for corporations engaged in merchandizing, transportation, and other non-manufacturing businesses, but not for manufacturing corporations.200

In 1875 an amendment to section 3 was proposed which would have replaced the words "liable to the amount of stock held or owned by him,” and have substituted the words "liable only for all unpaid installments on stock owned by him or transferred for the purpose of defrauding creditors."207 If this provision had been adopted, the law would have been almost reversed. Stockholders in corporations not engaged in manufacturing would have been subject to only a single liability, whereas those in manufacturing corporations, who in 1872 had been granted the privilege of single liability, might under the proposed provision have been subjected by statute to a double liability or even more. This proposal the voters refused to ratify. In 1876 the amendment to establish single liability was resubmitted, but the exception which would have created a higher liability for manufacturing corporations was omitted, that is, the amendment proposed would have established the limited liability for all corporations dealt with in article 10.208 This amendment was again submitted in 1877 but it was defeated on both occasions.209

210

The only amendment ever

II. ARTICLE II-COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS. proposed to this article was adopted in 1869. It consisted in the addition to the article of section 7, the object of which was to abolish the county of Manomin.2 This was a small county which was created at the extra session of the territorial legislative assembly in 1857 and which occupied a position east of the Mississippi river between the town of St. Anthony on the south, the town of Anoka on the north, and Ramsey county on the east.2 211 It contained only about sixteen square miles. The prevailing opinion seems to have been that under section I of this article no county already organized could be disorganized or abolished without the approval of the electors in the county.212 This miniature county was, therefore, abolished by constitutional

204 Sess. Laws 1870, ch. 21.

206 Ibid., 1872, ch. 12.

200 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, secs. 2080 ff.

207 Sess. Laws 1875, ch. 4.

208 Ibid., 1876, ch. 2.

200 Ibid., 1877, ch. 4.

210 Sess. Laws 1869, ch. 50.

211 Sess. Laws ex. sess. terr. legis., 1857, ch. 40. See also Upham, Minnesota Geographic Names, Minn. Hist. Col., vol. 17, p. 23.

213 Opin. of Atty's. Gen., 1858-1884, pp. 26, 45, 59.

amendment. It is interesting to observe in this connection that Cass county was disorganized by special act in 1876 and that the law was held constitutional.2

213

While there have been no other direct amendments to this article, other changes in the constitution have served to repeal parts of section I and to modify, in some respects, other sections. Section I provides among other things that "all laws changing county lines in counties already organized, or for removing county seats shall, before taking effect be submitted to the electors of the county or counties to be affected thereby, at the next general election after the passage thereof, and be adopted by a majority of such electors." The presumption very clearly is that the legislature will pass a special act in each case a vote upon one of these questions is desired, and for many years that was the practice. But in 1881, by the adoption of section 33 of article 4, the legislature was prohibited from enacting any special or private laws "for changing any county seat," and in 1892 this section was made to read, in part, that "the legislature shall pass no local or special law regulating the affairs of, or incorporating, erecting or changing the lines of any county, [or] locating or changing county seats."214 The power of the legislature to pass general laws upon these subjects was, however, expressly reserved. 215 The manner in which county lines may be changed and county seats relocated is now regulated by general laws passed once and for all time for all counties rather than by special laws passed for each case. Consequently some of the provisions of section 1 of article II have become impossible to carry out, and the state supreme court has held that they are repealed and superseded by section 33 of article 4.216 There are a number of other provisions in the constitution as printed today which, while they have not been expressly repealed, have been practically nullified by subsequent amendments to the federal or state constitution.2 217

...

12. ARTICLE 12-OF THE MILITIA. This is almost an ideal example of a brief and flexible article which is not in need of frequent amendment. No amendments to this article have ever been proposed by the legislature. The single section which constitutes the article briefly recognizes the need of the militia and leaves it to the legislature to pass such laws "as may be deemed necessary" to regulate "the organization, discipline and service of the militia of the state."

The courts have held that this article must be "read and construed in connection with" the provisions of the bill of rights.218 One part of the con213 Special Laws 1876, ch. 208; State ex rel. Slipp v. McFadden, 23 Minn. 40, (1876). 214 See pp. 219-20.

215 Minn. Const., art. 4, sec. 34.

16 State ex rel. Childs v. Board of County Commissioners of Crow Wing County, 66 Minn. 519, 524-26; 68 N. W. 767; 69 N. W. 925, (1896-97); State ex rel. Childs v. Pioneer Press Co., 66 Minn. 536; 68 N. W. 769, (1896).

217 See, for example, Minn. Const., art. 4, sec. 26; art. 7, sec. 1, the word "male"; art. 10, sec. 2, the words "except for municipal purposes."

218 State v. Wagener, 74 Minn. 518; 77 N. W. 424; 42 L. R. A. 749; 73 Am. St. Rep. 369; (1898).