Cited by

It must be very plain— nay, absolutely certain — that the people did not intend what the language they have employed in its natural signification imports, before a court will feel itself at liberty to depart from the plain reading of a constitutional provision.” Again, in Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388, 396 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)

In the Rockne case, the court relied upon Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Holm v. District Court, 156 Minn. 270, 272 , , 631, this court, in commenting on the division of governmental powers into three independent branches, quoted with approval its previous language in Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)

The plaintiff, relying largely on Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.

Birkeland v. Christianson, 179 Minn. 337 , ; Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.

McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 106 Minn. 392 , ; Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)

The next case is Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)

The building, improving and maintaining of public highways are “works of internal improvement.” Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388, 396 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Davis v. Hugo, 81 Minn. 220 , ; Lindberg v. Johnson, 93 Minn. 267 , ; Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.

Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388, 397 , , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 415.

In Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 415, it was held that the term “works of internal improvement” includes public highways, and that the prohibition prevents the state from appropriating moneys from the general revenue fund to aid in the construction and repair of highways and bridges.

The case of Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 415, and the several cases in which the court has required the secretary of state to make corrections in the official ballots prepared by him for the use of the voters at state elections are relied upon in support of the claim that the courts may enjoin the secretary of state and

Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 415.

But the later cases of Hayne v. Metropolitan Trust Co. 67 Minn. 245 , ; Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , 52 L.R.A.

It is argued that since, under Const. art. 9, § 5, state appropriations in aid of highway construction can be made only from the state road and bridge fund (Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , ), and the proportion of such fund which any county may receive in a single year cannot be “more than three per cent * * * of the total fund thus provided and expended” for the year (Const. art. 9, § 16), and furthermore, since the allotment for the year 1913 was less than the board’s order contemplate

This, briefly stated, is our position, and the one question before this court for determination.” The relator has cited many authorities to support the proposition, propounded by Chief Justice Start in Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388, 391 , , that, “when the language of the Constitution is positive and free from all ambiguity, courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning.” That this is the true canon of construction in applying cons

The uncertainty as to what the rule is in this state with reference to the control by the judiciary over the executive department of the government was noted in Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , *315 , and the decisions on that subject were reviewed and analyzed.

The case of Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388 , , was an action to restrain the state auditor from distributing money of the state under an unconstitutional statute, and was commenced after its passage.