Cited by

Marr v. Stearns , rev’d on other grounds, 179 U.S. 223 (1900)).

Marr v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 218 , 75 N.W.

Marr v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 217 , 75 N.W.

Marr v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 218 , 75 N.W.

Marr v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 218

Marr v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 215 , , where we said: “* * * His [the lieutenant governor’s] sole constitutional duties are to preside over the senate (he is not a member thereof and has no vote, even in cases where the senators are evenly divided), and to authenticate by his signature the bills passed by the senate.” This decisi

Marr v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , 75 N.W.

Marr v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 218 , ; Braun v. N. P. Ry.

State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 211 , , and the maxim, noscitur a soeiis, is applicable.

tion.” The court say: “Our conclusion is that, for the purpose of determining what votes have been east on the proposition, unintelligible as well as intelligible ballots must be considered, and that it must affirmatively appear, to effect a removal, that fifty-five per cent, at least, of all votes or ballots cast, including the unintelligible, are in favor thereof.” The case of State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , , considered, among other things, whether chapter 168, p. 378, of the Laws of 1895, r

As said by Chief Justice Start in State v. Stearns, 12 Minn. 200, 211 , : “The several provisions of the.

Bank of Faribault, 23 Minn. 280, 286 ; State v. Jones, 24 Minn. 251 ; County of Olmsted v. Barber, 31 Minn. 256 , ; In re Jefferson, 35 Minn. 215, 219 , ; State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 222 , .

The words “majority of the votes cast at such election” cannot be distinguished in import and meaning from the language in enactments construed in State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , , State v. Hugo, 84 Minn. 81 , , and State v. Village Council of Osakis, 112 Minn. 365 , ; and hence, there having been 321 votes cast at the election, and only 159 of these being in favor of license, or for a change in the existing condition of things in that respect, there w

Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , ; State v. Wagener, 77 Minn. 483 , 1134 , 46 L.R.A.

693, 30 L. Ed. 732 ; State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , ; County of Hennepin v. Bell, 43 Minn. 344 , .

Laws 1873, p. 302, c. 111, should be liable to pay a gross earnings tax as in that chapter provided, are unconstitutional, so far as they are repugnant to the constitutional amendment of 1871 (State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , ; State v. Duluth & Iron Range R. Co., 77 Minn. 433 , ); and, further, that the defendant never acquired any vested right to pay only the percentage of its gross earnings in lieu of other taxation fixed by statute prior to the adoption of the gross earnings tax law of 1

While we are required to take judicial notice of all facts bearing upon the constitutionality of a statute (State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , , and State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , ), yet we do not in fact know; and have no means of knowing, whether there were similar orders outstanding which had never been presented for *440 pajnment.

Of these facts-the courts, as well as the legislature, must take notice (State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 219 , ), and to that extent, and for such purposes, the law must be held remedial.

State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , .

Again in State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , , the court construed the provision of the constitution which provides that any law amending or repealing any of the gross-earnings tax statutes of the state shall “be submitted to a vote of the people of the state, and be adopted and ratified by a majority of the electors of the state voting at the ele

And if there seemed to be occasion for reconsidering such question, in view of the enactment of the Anderson law (Laws 1895, c. 168), and of the decision in State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , , all doubt has been put at rest by the recent utterances of the United States supreme court in reviewing that decision.

State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 217 , .

In State v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 , , we held that the act was duly passed and properly submitted, and was duly ratified by popular vote pursuant to the 1871 amendment to the constitution, known as section 32a, art. 4.