State ex rel. Board of Managers of Reform School of Jackson County v. Jackson County Court

• Decision Date: 21 June 1886
• Parties: The State ex rel. the Board of Managers of the Reform School of Jackson County v. The County Court of Jackson County
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 S.W. 307

89 Mo. 237

The State ex rel. the Board of Managers of the Reform School of Jackson County v. The County Court of Jackson County

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 21, 1886

Writ Denied.

Geo. W McCrary, Boggess & Moore and Scammon & Stubenrauch for relator.

(1) The act of the General Assembly of Missouri under consideration is general, and is not local or special legislation, and therefore, not within the inhibition of section 53, article 4, of the constitution of Missouri, declaring that "the General Assembly shall not pass any local or special law regulating the affairs of counties or cities -- incorporating cities, towns or villages -- or changing their charters, or creating corporations, or amending, reviewing, extending, or explaining the charters thereof." Rutherford v Heddens, 82 Mo. 388; State ex rel. Lionberger v Tolle, 71 Mo. 645; State ex rel. v. Hermann, 75 Mo. 340; City of Topeka v. Gilette, 4 P. 800; Kilgore v. Mayer, 85 Pa. St. 411; State ex rel. Dover v. Wilcox, 45 Mo. 458; Kelly v. Meeks, 87 Mo. 396; State ex rel. Kemper v. Railroad, 9 Mo.App. 532; Commonwealth v. Patterson, 88 Pa. St. 253, 258; Devine v. Commissioners, 84 Ill. 570; Van Piper v. Parsons, 11 Vroom (N. J.) 123; State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592. (2) If the unconstitutionality of the reform school is not clear and undoubted, it is the duty of the court to hold it to be constitutional. State ex rel. v. Railroad, 48 Mo. 468; County Court v. Griswold, 48 Mo. 175; Kelly v. Meeks, 87 Mo. 396; State v. Able, 65 Mo. 362; Stephens v. Bank, 43 Mo. 385.

B. L. Woodson, prosecuting attorney, E. A. Andrews and J. N. Southern for respondent.

(1) The act of the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, entitled "An act to provide for the estabment and maintenance of reform schools in counties containing a city of over fifty thousand inhabitants, and to provide for the punishment therein of juvenile offenders" is unconstitutional. It is in violation of section 53, article 4, of the constitution of Missouri. State ex rel. v. Hermann, 75 Mo. 340; State ex rel. v. Hammer, 42 N. J. Law, 435; Com. v. Patton, 88 Pa. St. 258; Scowden's Appeal, 7 South. Law Review, 921; Devine v. Cook County, 84 Ill. 590; Klokke v. Dodge, 14 Chicago Legal News, 147; State ex rel. v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592. (2) The act in question is also violative of article 6, section 36, and article 10, sections 1 and 10, of the constitution. Livingston v. Wider, 53 Ill. 302; Wider v. East St. Louis, 55 Ill. 133; People v. Mayor, 51 Ill. 18.

C. O. Tichenor, also, for respondent.

(1) The act in question is special legislation and in violation of section 53, article 4, of the constitution of Missouri. Cantieri v. New Brunswick, 15 Vroom, 58; Paronia Horse Ry. v. Jersey City, 16 Vroom, 298; State ex rel. Harris v. Hermann, 75 Mo. 340. (2) It is violative of article 6, section 36, of the constitution. State ex rel. Peck v. Riordan, 24 Wis. 484. (3) The state creates an institution for the county, and in this way actually and directly imposes a tax, to the extent of funds necessary to build and support it, upon the property of the county. It not only appropriates taxes collected, but taxes to be levied and collected. This is a positive violation of article 10, sections 1 and 10, of the constitution.

OPINION

Mandamus.

Sherwood J.

This is an original proceeding in this court, its object being to compel by mandamus the performance by the justices of the county court of Jackson county of certain duties enjoined upon them by the provisions of an act, approved April 10, 1885. On the part of the respondents it is insisted that the act in question is unconstitutional. The first section of that act is as follows: "Section 1. That in all counties in this state in which is located a city of over fifty thousand inhabitants, there shall be and there is hereby established a reform school for the punishment, reform and education of juvenile offenders as hereinafter provided." Laws, 1885, p. 222.

It is quite plain from this section that the act in question violates those provisions contained in section fifty-three of article four, of the constitution of this state, in relation to the passage of a local or special law. The first section just quoted, shows that it was designed to operate in the present, and on an existing state of facts, that is, "in all counties of this state in which is located a city of over fifty thousand inhabitants." We take judicial notice of the...