Covington v. the City of East St. Louis.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1875
• Citation: 78 Ill. 548,1875 WL 8531
• Parties: ALFRED COVINGTONv.THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

78 Ill. 548

1875 WL 8531 (Ill.)

ALFRED COVINGTON

v.THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. DANIEL MCGOWAN, Judge, presiding.

Mr. LUKE H. HITE, for the appellant.

Messrs. BOWMAN & HALBERT, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

By the 3d section of article 1 of the “act to reduce the charter of East St. Louis, and the several acts in force amendatory thereof, into one act, and to revise the same,” approved March 26, 1869, (Private Laws of 1869, Vol. 1, p. 886,) it is enacted that, “any tract of land adjoining the city of East St. Louis, laid off into city or town lots, a plat of which being duly recorded in the recorder's office of St. Clair county, shall be and form a part of the city of East St. Louis: Provided, the city council shall, by ordinance, so declare.” The tract of land on which is “Illinois City,” adjoining the city of East St. Louis, was laid off into town or city lots as early as 1825, and a plat thereof was duly recorded in the office of the recorder of St. Clair county. The city council of the city of East St. Louis, on the 5th day of May, 1875, by ordinance, declared this tract of land should be and form a part of the city of East St. Louis.

Appellant, a resident of, and doing business within, the territory thus declared to be annexed, seeks to enjoin appellee, its officers, etc., from proceeding under this ordinance, and the only question presented for our determination is, does “Illinois City” now form a part of the city of East St. Louis?

Two objections are made, either one of which, it is argued, is conclusive against the authority of the city council to thus extend the city limits: 1st. Section 3 of article 1 of the city charter was abrogated by the adoption of the constitution of 1870. 2d. That section is repugnant to, and therefore repealed by, “An act to provide for annexing and excluding territory to and from cities, towns and villages, and to unite cities, towns and villages,” in force July 1, 1872. (R. L. 1874, p. 244.)

We are of opinion that neither of these objections is tenable.

To hold that the constitution of 1870, by the mere fact of its adoption, operated as a repeal of all special charters of cities, towns and villages, would be to declare that all municipalities thus incorporated have, from that time, been without the protection of any local law. This would most disastrously affect a very large portion of the public. Such a decision could only be warranted by the clearest evidence that this was the design, and the necessary construction of the language of the constitution.

It is not pretended there is any provision in the constitution which expressly repeals the special charters of cities, towns and villages, but it is insisted that such is the general policy manifested by that instrument.

We have held, in the cases referred to by the counsel for appellant, that certain provisions of the constitution became operative, without the aid of subsequent legislation, but these provisions have not the slightest reference to the question presented here. They stand by themselves, are construed independently of other provisions in that instrument on different subjects, and, although some of them affect municipal corporations, they do not do so in respect to their boundaries or their police regulations.

The clause of section 22, article 3, referred to, which prohibits the General Assembly from passing local or special laws incorporating cities, towns or villages, or changing or amending the...