State v. Dolan
| Decision Date | 19 December 1887 |
| Citation | 6 S.W. 366,93 Mo. 467 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BOONE, Atty. Gen., v. DOLAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
B. G. Boone, Atty. Gen., J. W. Wofford, O. H. Dean, and James Hagerman, for relator. R. W. Quarles and W. A. Alderson, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding by "quo warranto," which challenges the right of John Dolan to the office of supervisor of registration in and for the city of Kansas, and it is averred in the information that said city has a population of more than 100,000 inhabitants, and that by reason of that fact, and an act of the legislature "to provide for the registration of voters in all cities having a population of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants, and to govern elections in such cities, and to create the office of recorder of voters" etc., approved March 31, 1883, (Acts 1883, p. 38,) that so much of the tenth article of the charter of said city creating the office of supervisor of registration was repealed, and that all the duties and functions of the office were devolved upon one John C. Hope, who had been appointed and commissioned by the governor, in pursuance of the provisions of said act of 1883, recorder of voters for said city, and who had duly qualified under said appointment. The said Dolan is called upon by the information to show cause why he should not be ousted from said office, and in his answer denies that the city of Kansas has or ever had a population of more than 100,000 inhabitants; denies that he is an intruder in said office, and avers that he is rightfully in said office and performing his duties; that at the general election held in said city in April, 1887, he was, in pursuance of article 10 of the charter of said city, duly elected, by a majority of the votes cast at said election, supervisor of registration for one year; that he secured his certificate of election, and took the oath of office prescribed before entering upon its duties.
The issues thus made up present for our determination two questions: Of fact, viz., did the city of Kansas, at the time alleged, have a population of more than 100,000? The question of law is: If it had such population, does the said act of March 31, 1883, creating the office of recorder of voters in cities containing that population, repeal, either expressly or by necessary implication, so much of article 10 of the charter of said city as created the office of supervisor of registration? An affirmative answer must be returned to both questions before a writ of ouster can issue, and a negative answer to either one denies the writ.
To establish the disputed fact, the state has put in evidence an ordinance of the city, approved September 17, 1885, requiring the enumeration or census of the inhabitants of the city of Kansas to be taken, and providing the manner and time in which the same shall be done, and appropriating the sum of $2,000 out of the expense fund to pay for the same. It is also in evidence that under said ordinance T. R. Tinsley was appointed to take said census, and that he did take it, and on the second day of November, 1885, reported the result to a regular meeting of the common council, all the members being present, and the following entry was made on the records, viz.: "Report of T. R. Tinsley, supervisor of the census, showing the population of Kansas City to be 105,042, was read and filed." The enumeration set forth in said report is as follows:
Total number of males, - - - - - - 65,680
Total number of females, - - - - - 39,362
Total number of whites, - - - - - - 93,568
Total number of colored, - - - - - 11,328
Total number of Chinese, - - - - - - 146
_______
Grand total number of actual inhabitants, - - 105,042
The passage of said ordinance, requiring the enumeration or census to be taken, was fully authorized by section 9 of an act "to authorize any...
To continue reading
Request your trial