City of Westport v. Kansas City

• Citation: 15 S.W. 68,103 Mo. 141
• Parties: CITY OF WESTPORT v. KANSAS CITY.
• Decision Date: 19 January 1891
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

15 S.W. 68

103 Mo. 141

CITY OF WESTPORT v. KANSAS CITY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January 19, 1891.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — CHARTER — AMENDMENT.

1. Const. Mo. art. 9, § 16, provides that any city having a population of 100,000 may frame a charter for its own government, which must be approved by four-sevenths of the qualified voters, and which, when "so adopted, may be amended by a proposal therefor made by the law-making authorities of such city, * * * and accepted by three-fifths of the qualified voters of such city, * * * and not otherwise." Kansas City adopted such a charter, one of whose provisions defined the territorial limits of the city. Held, that an ordinance to extend such limits is an amendment to the charter, and must be accepted by three-fifths of the voters, as required by the constitution.

2. Though the same section of the constitution further provides that "such charter shall always be * * * subject to the constitution and laws of this state," this confers no authority on the legislature to authorize amendments to the charter otherwise than as provided by the constitution; and hence Act Mo. March 10, 1887, providing that the territorial limits of such a city may be extended by ordinance, is void so far as it proposes to dispense with the assent of three-fifths of the qualified voters of the city to such ordinance.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county.

C. O. Tichenor, for appellant. R. L. Yeager and L. C. Slavens, for respondents.

BLACK, J.

In form, this is an action of ejectment to recover possession of a market-house, town-hall, and jail; but the real object of the suit is to test the validity of an ordinance of Kansas City, extending the limits thereof so as to include the city of Westport, which is a city of the fourth class. Since May 8, 1889, Kansas City has been governed by a special charter adopted by the voters thereof under the provisions of sections 16 and 17 of article 9 of the constitution, and pursuant to an act of the legislature of the 10th March, 1887, entitled "An act providing that any city having a population of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants may form a charter for its own government, and regulating the same." Acts 1887, p. 42. The first section of the adopted charter changes the name of the city from the City of Kansas to Kansas City. The second section fixes and specifically defines the territorial boundaries of the city, and they are the same as those of the City of Kansas. The ordinance in question was passed and approved by the legislative department of Kansas City on the 4th December, 1889, and it extends the limits of the city, as defined in the adopted charter, so as to add about 12,585 acres of land, including the city of Westport, which has a corporate territory of about 285 acres. More than four-sevenths of the qualified voters of Westport voted for the proposed extension, but the proposition was never submitted to the voters of Kansas City for their approval or rejection. Section 16 of article 9 of the constitution provides that any city having a population of 100,000 inhabitants may frame a charter for its own government by causing a board of freeholders to be elected, who shall prepare a draft of such charter to be submitted to the voters of such city, and, if approved by four-sevenths of the qualified voters voting at the election, then it shall become the charter of such city, and supersede any existing charter. "Such charter, so adopted, may be amended by a proposal therefor made by the law-making authorities of such city, published for at least thirty days, * * * and accepted by three-fifths of the qualified voters of said city, * * * and not otherwise." The seventeenth section declares that it shall be a feature of all such charters that they shall provide for two houses of legislation, one of which shall be elected by general ticket. The act of the legislature of the 10th March, 1887, was designated to aid cities in organizing under the above sections of the constitution. The forty-first section of that act provides that "any such city, after the taking effect of such charter, may at any time extend its limits by ordinance;" provided that, before such city shall extend its limits, so as to include any incorporated city, town, or village, four-sevenths of the qualified voters of the included city, town, or village shall vote in favor of the proposition, and, if they do so vote, then the city making the extension "may proceed to extend its limits as provided in this section." This act, it will be seen, makes no provision for the approval of the proposed extension by the voters of the city making the same, and it seems to contemplate that the limits may be extended without such a vote.

From what has been said, it will be seen that we must determine these questions: First, whether the ordinance extending the limits of Kansas City is an amendment to the adopted charter; second, if it is an amendment, then whether Kansas City can, with or without legislative aid, amend its own charter without submitting the question to the qualified voters for their approval or rejection.

On the first question the argument of Kansas City is, in substance, this: That the constitution gave the city a right to adopt a charter for its own government; that, if nothing had been said in the new charter about boundaries, the territorial jurisdiction would have remained as before; that the section of the new charter defining the boundaries was unnecessary, not an essential part of the charter, and should be disregarded. In looking through this adopted charter, we find a vast number of sections which might have been omitted without affecting the charter taken as a whole. But it does not follow that they are not parts thereof, because they could have been omitted. So, too, the freeholders, in framing the proposed charter, and the voters, in adopting it, did, by the second section thereof, fix and define the territorial limits of the municipality, and that section is as much a part of the charter as any other section therein contained. This section, defining the limits of Kansas City, is made a part of the charter, and the question whether it might or might not have been omitted is foreign to the present inquiry. In Gray v. Crockett, 30 Kan. 138, 1 Pac. Rep. 50, Wyandotte City had been incorporated under territorial laws. The state constitution forbade the passage of any special act conferring corporate powers, and provided that provision...