State v. County Court of Jackson County

• Decision Date: 19 January 1891
• Parties: The State ex rel. the Kansas City Park District v. The County Court of Jackson County
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

15 S.W. 79

102 Mo. 531

The State ex rel. the Kansas City Park District v. The County Court of Jackson County

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

January 19, 1891

From 1879 to 1889 there was a collection of enactments included in chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (1879) entitled "Of cities, towns and villages."

The general assembly, at its session in 1889, revised and amended that chapter by a bill entitled, "An act to revise and amend chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1879 and the amendatory acts thereto, entitled 'Of cities towns and villages.'" The bill as passed constitutes chapters 30 and 31 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1889. In addition to other amendments of the old chapter 89 by this revising bill, there were added to article 7 of said chapter, entitled "City parks," thirty-five new sections, numbered from 1727 to 1761 (inclusive). These new sections provide for the organization and management of public corporations to be known as park districts, in every county of this state in which there is, or in which there may hereafter be, a city containing not less than one hundred thousand nor more than three hundred thousand inhabitants every such park district to include such city and territory adjacent thereto (section 1727). The general purpose of said corporations is declared to be to establish parks and improve and build roads, highways and bridges within their limits.

By the terms of these new sections, if it were desired by the city and county authorities, wherein the required conditions of population existed, to organize such a park district it should be done in the following manner:

The common council of said city should select two persons, and the county court of the county two persons, all of whom must be residents of the district, who, together with the mayor of such city, should constitute a board of park commissioners and who, after organization as provided by the bill (section 1729), should locate and define the boundaries of such park district, including the city and so much of the adjacent territory as said park commissioners might select, not to exceed in all seventy square miles, and should make and file a plat thereof; whereupon the inhabitants of the territory, included within the boundaries of such park district, would become by operation of law a body politic and corporate by the name and style of (the name of said city) park district; and the board of park commissioners so chosen would constitute the corporate authorities thereof.

Said sections further provide that the money necessary to carry out the purpose of any such park district should be raised by the levy of a tax upon all the lands within the district, and by requiring the county court of such county to turn over to the park authorities thirty per cent. of the money received by the county from dramshop licenses within such park district.

Section 1753 (R. S. 1889) reads as follows: "Such board of park commissioners shall, during the month of April in each year, determine by ordinance the rate of taxation which it will be necessary to levy in order to raise the amount of money that will be required for general expenditure within such park district for public purposes during the ensuing fiscal year; provided, such rate shall not exceed one-tenth of one per cent. per annum. The board of park commissioners shall forward a certified copy of such ordinance to the county court of such county. Such county court shall annually levy such tax upon all the real estate and improvements thereon, located within such park district, and cause the same to be collected in like manner as county taxes may be collected."

The relator, "Kansas City Park District," having organized in pursuance of said sections, duly applied to the county court of Jackson county for the levy and collection of the tax provided for by section 1753. The county court refused to make said levy. The relator applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the levy, whereupon this court issued its alternative writ to that end, the return to which has challenged the statute in question as being in conflict with the constitution of the state.

The other necessary facts are mentioned in the opinion.

Writ denied.

Haff & Van Valkenburgh, Dobson & Trimble and R. L. Yeager, City Counselor, for relator.

(1) This statute is not open to the objection that it violates section 28 of article 4 of the constitution which provides that, "No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title." State v. Matthews, 44 Mo. 523-527; City of Hannibal v. Marion County, 69 Mo. 571-575; State ex rel. v. Mead, 71 Mo. 266; State ex rel. v. Shepherd, 74 Mo. 310; State ex rel. v. Ranson, 73 Mo. 78-86; State ex rel. v. Laflin, 75 Mo. 358-367; State v. Brassfield, 81 Mo. 151-162; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495-497; St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 578; Sharp v. Mayor, 31 Barb. 572; Kerrigan v. Force, 68 N.Y. 381; Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82; Duncombe v. Prindle, 12 Iowa 1-10; Woodruff v. Baldwin, 23 Kan. 492; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 322; Brandon v. State, 16 Ind. 197; Mills v. Treasurer, 29 Wis. 400-408; Imp. Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 214; Robinson v. State, 15 Tex. 311; Shields v. Bennett, 8 W.Va. 84; Jones v. Mayor, 25 Ga. 610; O'Leary v. Cook County, 28 Ill. 534; Firemen, etc., Co. v. Lounsbury, 21 Ill. 511; People v. Mahney, 13 Mich. 494; Louisiana v. Pillsbury, 105 U.S. 289. (2) This statute is not open to the objection that it violates section 53 of article 4 of the constitution which prohibits special and local legislation. Humes v. Railroad, 82 Mo. 231; State ex rel. v. Harmon, 75 Mo. 340; Rutherford v. Heddons, 82 Mo. 388; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64-73; State ex rel. v. Pond, 93 Mo. 606; Rutherford v. Hamilton, 97 Mo. 543-547; McAunich v. Railroad, 28 Iowa 338-342; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. 338. (3) This act does not contravene section 7 of article 9 of the constitution which directs the legislature to provide by general laws for the organization and classification of cities and towns into four classes, and to define their powers, so that all corporations of the same class shall possess the same powers and be subject to the same restrictions, and to provide how cities may elect to come in under such law. Rutherford v. Heddons, 82 Mo. 388; Kelly v. Meeks, 87 Mo. 396-399; Rutherford v. Hamilton, 97 Mo. 543-547. (4) First. This act does not contravene sections 1, 3 and 4 of article 10 of the constitution which provide that taxation shall be for public purposes and uniform within the taxing district, and that all property subject to taxation shall be taxed in proportion to its value. State v. North, 27 Mo. 464, 483; Hamilton v. Court, 15 Mo. 3-24; Crow v. State, 14 Mo. 237-324. Second. No question can arise here as to the constitutional inhibition against exempting property from taxation on the ground that the assessments provided for in this act are against real estate alone. State ex rel. v. Court, 44 Mo. 504; Adams v. Lindell, 5 Mo.App. 197-310; Adams v. Lindell, 72 Mo. 198; Farrar v. City of St. Louis, 80 Mo. 379, 386. (5) The provisions of this bill do not violate section 10 of article 10 of the constitution which provides that the legislature shall not impose taxes upon counties, cities or other municipal corporations. People v. Solomon, 51 Ill. 37-49; Railroad v. McCleave, 108 Ill. 368-371; Wilson v. Board of Trustees, S.Ct. Ill. Chicago Legal News, June 21, 1890, p. 347; Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 495; State ex rel. v. Court, 44 Mo. 504; People v. Draper, 15 N.Y. 532; Daley v. St. Paul, 7 Minn. 311-314; Levee v. Meier, 39 Mo. 53. (6) This act does not contravene section 2 of article 10 of the constitution which prescribes the maximum rates which may be levied for county, city and school purposes. Railroad v. McCleave, 108 Ill. 368; Wilson v. Board of Trustees, S.Ct. of Ill. Chicago Legal News, June 21, 1890, pp. 347-349. (7) This act does not violate section 45 of article 4 of the constitution. No question of state aid is involved. Nor does it violate section 47 of article 4, nor section 6 of article 9, as claimed by respondents, which prohibit counties, townships, cities or other municipalities from aiding other corporations by subscribing to their stock or appropriating money to their aid or loaning to them their credit. State v. Police Commissioners, 34 Mo. 546; Hannibal v. Marion County, 69 Mo. 571-576; State ex rel. v. Holliday, 70 Mo. 137; City of St. Louis v. Shields, 52 Mo. 351-354; School Dist. v. Weber, 75 Mo. 558. (8) Parks are for "a public use;" hence taxation for providing parks, as well as for opening and improving highways is taxation for public purposes in conformity with the constitution. Court v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175. (9) A legislative enactment must be regarded as valid by the courts unless its unconstitutionality is shown beyond a reasonable doubt and all doubts are to be resolved in favor of its validity. (10) The duty of the respondent to levy the tax provided by section 1753, Revised Statutes, 1889, when requested by an ordinance of the board of park commissioners, is a ministerial duty, and mandamus is the proper remedy to enforce its performance.

E. P. Gates and C. O. Tichenor for respondent.

(1) The city park law is in direct violation of section 7 of article 9 of the constitution of this state. The legislature cannot accomplish by indirect methods that which it is forbidden to do by direct methods. Webb v. LaFayette County, 67 Mo. 363. (2) It is in violation of sections 3 and 4 of article 10 of the constitution. City of St. Louis v Spiegel, 90 Mo. 458; Farrar v. City of St. Louis, 80 Mo. 391; State ex rel. v. Leffingwell, 54 Mo. 458; O'Kane v. Treat...