State v. Ziegenhein

• Decision Date: 24 May 1898
• Citation: 45 S.W. 1099,144 Mo. 283
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HEAVEN v. ZIEGENHEIN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 S.W. 1099

144 Mo. 283

STATE ex rel. HEAVEN v. ZIEGENHEIN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May 24, 1898.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — PENSIONS TO POLICEMEN.

Const. art. 4, § 47, provides that "the general assembly shall have no power to authorize any * * * city * * * or other political subdivision of the state now existing, or that may hereafter be established, * * * to grant public money * * * in aid of or to any individual, association or corporation whatsoever." Act April 9, 1895 (Sess. Acts 1895, p. 234), amending Act April 22, 1891, required the city of St. Louis to pension policemen who were injured in the service, or the families of policemen killed in service, or of patrolmen who had served on the force for 20 years or more, after retirement, at the discretion of the police board. Held, that this statute was an attempt to "grant public money to or in aid of an individual," against the constitutional inhibition, and was therefore void.

In banc. Mandamus by the state, on relation of James Heaven, against Henry Ziegenhein and others. Peremptory writ denied.

Hough & Hough and Chas. T. Noland, for relator. W. C. Marshall and Chas. Claflin Allen, for respondents.

WILLIAMS, J.

We are called upon in this case (which is an original proceeding in this court, by mandamus, against the St. Louis police board) to determine the validity of what is known as the "Police Pension Law" of 1895. A statute, enacted in 1861, created a board of commissioners for the control of the police force of said city, and committed to said board the entire charge and management thereof. The commissioners, except the mayor of the city of St. Louis, who is ex officio a member and president of the board, are appointed by the governor, and the policemen are declared by the statute to be officers of the state. 2 Rev. St. 1889, p. 2200, § 33. The salaries are paid by the city, and the board is authorized to certify to the correctness of claims against the police department. Relator, a former member of the force, asserts that he is entitled to half-pay since June 16, 1897, when he was placed upon the "retired list," and asks that the board of police commissioners be required to issue a proper certificate to him showing that fact. He bases his rights upon, and the question for decision arises out of, the amendatory act of April 9, 1895, to be found in the Session Acts of 1895 (page 234). The parts material to this controversy are as follows: "The board of police commissioners are hereby authorized to make all such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this act, as they may judge necessary for the appointment, employment, uniforming, disciplining, trial and government of the police and for the relief and compensation of members of the police force injured in person or property in the discharge of their duty, and the families of the officers and men killed while in such discharge of duty. And whenever any person is employed by said board as a policeman, such employment shall be upon the following conditions: First. [A provision is here inserted for the retirement upon half-pay of one physically disabled while in the performance of his duty as policeman.] Second. If a member of the force shall lose his life while in and by reason of the performance of his duty, and shall leave a widow, or children under sixteen years of age, such widow during her life, and if there be no widow then the child or children until they become sixteen years old, shall receive a monthly payment equal to one-half of the salary attached to the rank which the policeman held at the time of his death. Third. That any person so employed, who shall serve for the period of 20 years or more, may in the discretion of said board be retired from active service, and be thereafter paid during his natural life a yearly salary equal to one-half the amount of the salary attached to the rank which he may have held on said force for one year next preceding his retirement." It is further declared that no one retired under the provisions of said act shall be entitled to any relief from the police relief association organized under section 2885 of the Statutes of 1889. Relator was appointed a member of the police force on March 23, 1866. He entered upon the discharge of his duties April 1, 1866. The board adopted a rule on March 11, 1884, that all officers be commissioned for a term of four years from April 1, 1884, and he received a commission for that length of time. He, at his own request, was made a turnkey on the 31st of May, 1886, and continued to serve in that capacity until June 16, 1897, when the board placed him upon the retired list. He was not reappointed at the expiration of each period of four years during his service, but continued in his position without any action by the board upon the subject. He claims that this amounted to a new appointment at the end of every four years for another term of the same length, and thereby made his last appointment date from April 1, 1896, after the act of 1895, supra, went...