Turner v. Ramsey

• Decision Date: 27 February 1917
• Docket Number: Case Number: 7856
• Citation: 63 Okla. 199,163 P. 712,1917 OK 163
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Parties: TURNER, et al. v. RAMSEY et al.

1917 OK 163

163 P. 712

63 Okla. 199

TURNER, et al. v. RAMSEY et al.

Case Number: 7856

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 27, 1917

Syllabus

¶0 Municipal Corporations--Officers--Charter--Initiative Petition--Composite Proposition--Salary and Term--City Commissioner--"Public Official." Two or more congruous propositions may be united as one in an initiative petition and in a submission thereof to an electorate so as to have an expression of the voters determine whether such composite proposition, with each of its elemental propositions, shall be adopted as an amendment to a city charter. (a) A proposition as to the amount of salary a city commissioner shall receive, another that such salary may be increased or decreased at any time by an amendment of such charter, and another that his term of office may be terminated at any time, when so united as a single composite proposition, are congruous, and, in this respect, permissible. (b) Such composite proposition, when it has received the ratification of a majority of the voters and the approval of the Governor, as required by sections 3a and 4e, art. 18 (Williams', secs. 329, 335) of the Constitution, is subject to the provision of section 10, art. 23 (Williams', sec. 359) of such Constitution, and cannot affect the salary of any such commissioner during a term for which he was previously elected or appointed.

Whalin & Burton, for plaintiffs in error.

McElhoes, Ferris & Rhinefort, for defendants in error.

THACKER, J.

¶1 This is an agreed case submitted to the district court of Comanche county, Okla., under sections 4419-4421, Stat. 1893 (sections 5303-5305, Rev. Laws 1910), by J. D. Ramsey, as plaintiff, and W. D. Turner, commissioner of finance, Henry Boyle, commissioner of public safety, and Dick Sanders, commissioner of public property, of the city of Lawton, Okla., as defendants, to which George H. Roberts was allowed to become a party plaintiff upon his request. The case was decided in that court on November 1, 1915, against defendants, enjoining each of them, as prayed by the plaintiffs, from receiving a salary of more than $ 100 per month as such commissioners, under the charter of that city. This charter was in full force and effect at the time of the election of defendants, on April 6, 1915, to the respective offices mentioned, and at the time of their installation, on May 3, 1915, and then provided a salary of $ 166.66 2-3 per month for each of them, but purports to have been since amended by the ratification of a submitted proposition by the electorate of said city on April 6, 1915, when defendants were elected. The defendants were so elected for a term of two years. This purported amendment was proclaimed by the Governor as effective on September 2, 1915, and provides in substance and effect: (1) That the compensation of each commissioner shall be $ 100 per month; (2) that the term of office of each commissioner may be terminated at any time by amendment of said charter; and (3) that the compensation of each commissioner may be increased or decreased at any time by an amendment of said charter. The ballot title used in voting on said amendment is as follows:

"Gist of the Proposition. Proposes an amendment to be known as section 10 of the charter of the city of Lawton, Oklahoma, fixing the salaries of the commissioners and providing that the term of office of any commissioner, or of all the commissioners, may be terminated at any time or their salaries increased or decreased at any time by an amendment to the charter of the city of Lawton, Oklahoma, and repealing all the provisions of the charter in conflict herewith."

¶2 From a judgment against the defendants they bring the case here for review upon the following propositions:

First. That the purported amendment is void because the ballot title used embraced three distinct propositions so united as to compel the voters to vote for or against all of them as a single proposition, and did not permit them to vote for or against each proposition separately as a distinct one.

Second. That the purported amendment of September 2, 1915, if valid, is inapplicable to and does not affect the salaries of the defendants during the term of office which they had been elected and upon which they had entered before the amendment went into effect because of section 10, art. 23 (Williams', sec. 359) of the Constitution of this state, which reads as follows:

¶3 "Except wherein otherwise provided in this Constitution, in no case shall the salary or emoluments of any public official be changed after his election or appointment, or during his term of office, unless by operation of law enacted prior to such election or appointment; nor shall the term of any public official be extended beyond the period for which he was elected or appointed: Provided, that all officers within this state shall continue to perform the duties of their offices until their successors shall be duly qualified." We will discuss these propositions in the order in which we have stated them above. It seems clear that, although not expressly inhibited, two or more incongruous propositions cannot be submitted to the voters of a municipal corporation as a single question so as to have one expression answer all of them, under our Constitution (sections 3a and 4e, art. 18, Williams', secs. 329 and 335) and statutes (L. 1907-08, pp. 440-444, and L 1910, pp. 121- 126, sections 3368-3401, Rev. Laws 1910--Lozier v. Alexander Drug Co., 23 Okla. 1, 99 P. 808), although there is more or less inharmony in the decided cases both as to what are separate and distinct propositions, and when there is such incongruity as to render the submission unfair and void. City of Leavenworth v. Wilson, 69 Kan. 74, 76 P. 400, 2 Ann. Cas. 367...