Jumper v. McCollum
Decision Date | 24 June 1929 |
Docket Number | 44,57 |
Citation | 18 S.W.2d 359,179 Ark. 837 |
Parties | JUMPER v. MCCOLLUM |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Faulkner Chancery Court; W. E. Atkinson, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
J Wendell Henry, for appellant.
R W. Robins, J. C. & Wm. J. Clark, for appellee.
OPINION
An act, No. 64, was passed at the 1929 session of the General Assembly which effected substantial changes in the law governing the organization and administration of local improvement districts in cities and towns.
A street improvement district was organized in the city of Conway, under the terms of this act, within less than ninety days after adjournment of the General Assembly which passed it, and the validity of the district depends upon the question whether act 64 was in force at the time the district was organized, as the proceedings for that purpose did not conform to the statute which act 64 amends. No other question is involved on this appeal.
The act contains the following emergency clause:
Appellant, as a property owner in the district, insists (a) that the language used in the emergency clause of act 64 is not sufficient to state an emergency within the meaning of the Constitution, and (b) that there is, in fact, no such emergency as that stated.
The original Initiative and Referendum Amendment provided that: "The second power (reserved to the people) is a referendum, and it may be ordered (except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety) either by the petition, signed by five per cent. of the legal voters, or by the legislative assembly as other bills are enacted."
In construing this constitutional amendment in the case of Hanson v. Hodges, 109 Ark. 479, 160 S.W. 392, it was held that all acts of the General Assembly are subject to the referendum except such laws as are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, but that it was a question exclusively for legislative determination whether a statute was necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety. It was also held in the case cited that, while the existence of an emergency must be declared by the Legislature so as to exclude the referendum, it was not essential that this declaration be made in the exact words of the amendment, as other words of similar import unmistakably showing the intention to declare that an emergency existed, were sufficient.
At the 1918 general election a new Initiative and Referendum Amendment was adopted. Brickhouse v. Hill, 167 Ark. 513, 268 S.W. 865. Section 4 of this amendment contains the following provisions in regard to emergency legislation:
It is not sufficient, under this last amendment, for the legislation merely to declare that an emergency exists, but it is necessary to state the fact which constitutes such emergency. If therefore an act is passed which does not contain an emergency clause in which the fact is stated constituting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stone v. State
...said to be arbitrary. Stanley v. Gates, 179 Ark. 886, 19 S.W.2d 1000; Gentry v. Harrison, 194 Ark. 916, 110 S.W.2d 497; Jumper v. McCollum, 179 Ark. 837, 18 S.W.2d 359; Chicago Title and Trust Company v. Hagler Special School District, 178 Ark. 443, 12 S.W.2d 881. Expressisions of this rule......
-
Priest v. Polk
...in invalidating the emergency clause due to the obvious political motivation of the outgoing councilmen. In Jumper v. McCollum, 179 Ark. 837, 840, 18 S.W.2d 359, 361 (1929), this court stated that "[i]f the fact which constitutes the emergency is recited, and if fair-minded and intelligent ......
-
Molesworth v. Secretary of Com.
...as a basis for an emergency preamble, it has been held necessary to state the facts constituting the emergency. See Jumper v. McCollum, 179 Ark. 837, 839-840, 18 S.W.2d 359; Gentry v. Harrison, 194 Ark. 916, 920-922, 110 S.W.2d 497; Fulkerson v. Refunding Bd., 201 Ark. 957, 961-962, 147 S.W......
-
Prescott v. Sec'y of Commonwealth
...failure to comply with this requirement would render a statement ineffective as a declaration of an emergency. See Jumper v. McCollum, 179 Ark. 837, 840, 18 S.W.2d 359;Payne v. Graham, 118 Me. 251, 107 A. 709, 7 A.L.R. 516. See, also, Mayor of Lowell v. Dadman, 191 Mass. 370, 77 N.E. 717. N......