State v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 17 May 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23668.,23668.
• Citation: 241 S.W. 945
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RICE v. EDWARDS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

241 S.W. 945

STATE ex rel. RICE v. EDWARDS et al.

No. 23668.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

May 17, 1922.

Original proceeding in mandamus by the State, on the relation of Edward Rice, against John B. Edwards and others, members of and constituting the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, Mo. Alternative writ made peremptory.

E. C. Crow and Chas. G. Revelle, both of St. Louis, for relator.

Henry S. Caulfield and Geo. F. Haid, both of St. Louis, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

Original action in mandamus. Relator, desiring to run for the office of justice of the peace, filed his declaration of candidacy with respondents, the board of election commissioners of the city of St. Louis. His qualifications are not questioned, save and except that he is not now within the Third justices' and constables' district, as such district was formed, under Laws of 1921, p. 67, first special session of the Missouri Legislature for such year. Respondents refused to file his declaration of candidacy (although otherwise in due form) on the sole ground that he could not become a candidate in the present Third district, because not a resident thereof. According to a previous subdivision of the city, he was a resident of the Third district, and he filed under the theory that the subsequent subdivision of the city into districts (under the act of 1921) was void, and the old districts remained intact. The facts are not controverted. If the new districts were made without authority of law, our alternative writ should be made absolute. If the newly arranged districts have the sanction of law, then our alternative writ should be quashed.

It is admitted that the General Assembly of Missouri was duly called in special session by the Governor, and as the seventh clause of that call the following appeared:

"7. Such other matters and subjects as may be recommended by the Governor by special message to the special session of the General Assembly for its consideration after it shall have been convened."

After the General Assembly was in session pursuant to the call, the Governor undertook to submit a special subject (not one in the call) thus:

"To the House of Representatives of the Special Session of the Fifty-First General Assembly of Missouri:

"I have the honor to submit for your action the following subject:

"The amendment of section 2947, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919, to permit the division of cities of six hundred thousand or over into districts for justices of the peace, by such officers as your body may specify."

"To the Senate of the Special Session of the Fifty-First General Assembly of Missouri:

"I have the honor to submit for your action the following subject:

"The amendment of section 2947, Revised Statutes of Missouri for 1919, to permit the division of cities of six hundred thousand or over into districts for justice of the peace, by such officers as your body may specify."

The original call summoned the General Assembly to special action in this language:

"Now, therefore, I, Arthur M. Hyde, Governor of the State of Missouri, by virtue of the authority in me vested by the Constitution and laws of the state, do hereby convene the Fifty-First General Assembly of the state of Missouri in extra session, and I do hereby call upon the Senators and Representatives of the said General Assembly to meet in their respective places in the state capitol in the city of Jefferson, at the hour of 12 o'clock m. on the 14th day of June, 1921, to consider and enact such legislation as may to the General Assembly seem proper concerning the following subjects and purposes."

As said, the subject-matter of the act of 1921 (Laws of Missouri, 1st Extra Session, p. 67) was not in this call. The italics in the foregoing are ours, and are made to show that the call was to the General Assembly, and that the subjects of legislation desired were submitted to the General Assembly.

After the two special messages, supra (one to the Senate and one to the House of Representatives), the General Assembly passed, and the Governor approved, an act entitled:

"An act to repeal section 2947, article X, chapter 22, of the Revised Statutes of Missouri for the year 1919, entitled, `Justices of the Peace and constables in cities of ammo inhabitants and over,' and to enact a new section in lieu thereof to be known as section 2947."

The act itself reads:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

"Section 1. Repealing section 2947, chapter 22, article X, R. S. of Mo., 1919, and enacting new section.—That section 2947 of article X, chapter 22, of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1919, is hereby repealed and the following new section in lieu thereof is hereby enacted to be designated as section 2947:

"Sec. 2947. Division into Districts, Who to Make.—The judges of the circuit court, or a majority thereof, in all cities now having or which may hereafter have a population of 600,000 or over shall immediately proceed to divide their respective cities into districts upon the basis of population as fixed by this article and every twelve tears thereafter and shall define and fix the metes and bounds of said districts, and each of said districts shall be entitled to one justice of the peace and one constable, to be elected as provided in this article. Provided, that the persons now holding the office of justices of the peace and constables in the districts as now comprised shall continue to perform the duties of their respective offices until the general election of 1922, at which time one justice of the peace and one constable for each district as defined by the judges of the circuit court shall be elected, after which time there shall be no other justices of the peace or constables in the districts as they are now comprised, except as herein provided for. Approved July 30, 1921."

Section 2947 was originally enacted in 1891 (Laws of 1891, p. 175) and was passed under the following title:

"An act to provide for the election of justices of the peace, clerks thereof, and constables, in cities which now have or may hereafter have a population of 300,000 inhabitants or more, and to define the jurisdiction of the justices and the practice in the courts thereof, and the duties of said justices, clerks and constables, and to fix their salaries and terms of office."

The section repealed by the act of 1921 (special session) supra, reads as follows:

"Sec. 2947. The judges of the probate court, criminal court, criminal court of correction and of the circuit court, or a majority thereof, in all such cities [of 300,000 or more] shall, six months prior to the general election of 1894, divide their respective cities into districts upon the basis of population as fixed by this article, and shall define and fix the metes and bounds of said districts, and each of said districts shall be entitled to one justice of the peace and one constable, to be elected as provided in this article."

Under this law the old districts were established, and under the districts as then and thus established, relator was a resident of the Third justice and constables district of the city of St. Louis. He is not a resident of the new Third district, as established November 5, 1921, under the laws of 1921, supra. The foregoing sufficiently outlines the facts for a disposition of the questions raised.

I. The first contention is that the special messages of the Governor (quoted supra) were insufficient to authorize the General Assembly to act upon the matter mentioned in these two messages, one to the Senate, and the other to the House of Representatives. The point made is that these submissions are not to the General Assembly, but to the two respective component parts thereof.

In this they differ from the proclamation. That instrument was a call for a meeting of the "Fifty-First General Assembly," and the matters and subjects therein submitted were to the General Assembly. It left the character of the laws suggested to the judgment of the General Assembly. This appears from the quotation from the call,, supra.

The language of the two messages upon the subject under consideration here is unfortunate. They are not addressed to the General Assembly, but to the two branches thereof. Instead of saying "To the Senate of the Special Session of the Fifty-First General Assembly of Missouri," both messages might have well been addressed to the Fifty-First General Assembly of Missouri, in special session. See Special Message of Gov. Marmaduke, Wells v. Ry. Co., 110 Mo. loc. cit. 287, 19 S. W. 530, 15 L. R. A. 847. Had an oral message been delivered (a thing that we do not say could have been done), it would have been to the General Assembly through a joint session of the two Houses.

The unfortunate parts of these two messages are: (1) That they submit the matter for "your action," meaning the House to which the message was addressed, rather than to the General Assembly; and (2) that the districts were to be formed "by such officers as your body may specify," meaning the House to which the message was addressed, rather than the General Assembly.

It is urged that there were no officers of the General Assembly, and hence the message could not have been otherwise directed.. a could have been otherwise directed, and properly directed. Wells v. Ry. Co., 110 Mo. loc. cit. 287, 19 S. W. 530, 15 L. R. A. 847. Both House and Senate are component parts of the General Assembly, and their respective officers, for many purposes, function as officers of the General Assembly. A message addressed to the General Assembly, and delivered to the officers of the respective parts of that body, would have been a message to the General Assembly, and lodged with proper officers of the same. My first impression was that there was substance in this point; but, upon more mature deliberation, have concluded that we can uphold these messages, notwithstanding their...