State v. Frazier

• Decision Date: 24 June 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 973,98 Mo. 426
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE <I>ex rel.</I> HARRISON, Prosecuting Attorney, v. FRAZIER <I>et al.</I>

11 S.W. 973

98 Mo. 426

STATE ex rel. HARRISON, Prosecuting Attorney, v. FRAZIER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 24, 1889.

ELECTIONS AND VOTERS — QUALIFICATIONS — REPEAL OF STATUTES — QUO WARRANTO.

1. Const. Mo. 1875, art. 8, § 2, defines the qualifications of voters, and makes no reference to registration. Section 5 provides that the general assembly shall provide for registration in cities and counties having a certain population. From article 9, § 7, it is apparent that cities having special charters were not meant to be deprived of them by the constitution. Held, that article 8, § 2, did not repeal that part of a special act incorporating the city of Rolla in 1865 which provided for the registration of voters at city elections.

2. Where persons holding the offices of councilmen of such city derive title to such offices from an election invalid because the voters were not registered, they are properly ousted on proceedings in the nature of quo warranto.

Appeal from circuit court, Phelps county; CHARLES C. BLAND, Judge.

Proceeding by information, in the nature of quo warranto, to oust defendants from their tenure of office as councilmen of the city of Rolla, in Phelps county. The relator is the prosecuting attorney of that county, proceeding officially. Defendants were chosen councilmen of Rolla at an election otherwise valid, but without any previous registration of the voters of that city. Rolla was incorporated by a special act, approved January 25, 1865, (Sess. Acts 1864-65, p. 431, art. 5, § 2.) Part of that act requires that the voters at city elections "shall register their names at least two weeks next preceding the election in a book to be kept and provided by the city register for that purpose." The circuit court held the election invalid, and ousted the defendants. The latter appealed.

A. Corse and H. E. Baker, for appellants. L. F. Parker, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J., (after stating the facts as above.)

1. The charter of Rolla is a special law, enacted at a time when such legislation was constitutional. It is declared, by its terms, to be a public act, and receivable in evidence without further proof. This authorizes all courts to take judicial notice of its contents. Defendants insist that the state constitution, adopted in 1875, repealed that part of the charter of Rolla requiring the registration of voters at city elections. The constitution defines the qualifications of voters, making no reference to registration as one of them. Article 8, § 2. It then declares that "the general assembly shall provide, by law, for the registration of all voters in cities and counties having a population of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants, and may provide for such registration in cities having a population exceeding twenty-five thousand inhabitants and not exceeding one hundred thousand, but not otherwise." Id. § 5. By another section it is made clear that cities having special charters were not intended to be deprived of them by the adoption of the constitution merely, without supplemental legislation to that effect. Article 9, § 7. The terms of a special law are not ordinarily regarded as repealed by a later law of a general nature on the same subject. To thus effect a repeal, such an intent must be clearly manifested in the latter. The constitutional declaration regarding the power and duty of the general assembly, in respect of the registration of voters, is, by its terms, evidently designed to have a prospective operation only. It does not purport to repeal...