Kansas City daily journal., 1896-12-10
CHARTER is AN OBSTACLE.
SCHEME OF GANG POLITICIANS TO
RUN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
Want Board of Control Similar to
That ut the Head of the Police
Force-An Opinion by City
Counselor McDOugaI.

A number Of men have called upon Chief
Hale of the fire department, during the
past few days and informed him that they
had been selected to succeed him as the
head OF the service. When asked by whom
they had been so selected, their answers
were evasive, but they said a movement
had been started by the Shannons, Arthur
Chapman and their political associates in
Kansas City TO depose Chief Hale and
vest the administration OF the department
in a commission, similar to the board Of
police commissioners. This, according 10
the project. is to be done by securing the
passage of bill through the state legisla-
ture. when it cOnvenes next month, ere
ating the board and providing for the ap-
pointment Of the commissioners. The ef-
feet would be to divest the chief Of the
power of discharging and employing his
men. which ne now enjoys, should he be
permitted to remain in the Office.
Chief Hale has not given these rumors
much weight, as he did not believe the
state legislature is authorized to interfere
in a matter controlled by the city char
ter. but he said yesterday that if such ac-
ton should be taken he would resign his
office, as he could not, under the proposed
plan, keep up the discipline OF the depart
ment. He asked City Counselor McDOugal
for an opinion on this point, and last night
received the following answer:
"Ofice of the City Counselor.
kansas City, Mo. Dec 8. 1896.
George C. Hale, Chief Fire Department,
City.
Dear Sir:-For a complete answer to
your inquiry as 20 the right Of the state
Legislature to pass a law under which the
fire department of this city may be regu-
lated and controlled. l direct your atten-
tiOn to the following quotation from an
opinion rendered by me February 13. 1886,
upon somewhat similar question:
The question, under the constitution, is
one of power: Has the legislature the
power TO thus amend a charter framed and
adopted by the people This precise ques-
ton was carefully considered by our su-
preme court in the reCe-t case of Kansas
City ex rel VS.. Scarritt C2I Mo. 6i2) and
answered in the negative. The con5citu-
tional provision in question was taken up
and held TO mean precisely what it says.
viz, THAT the charter may be amended
by the voters of the city. and not other
wise" The court adds: I'VE do not feel
at liberty to strike the words and not
otherwise out of their place as n part of
the state charter. In the connection in
which these words appear Cart. 8. sec. 16)
we consider them of mandatory force. We
hold that they are binding on all depart
ments of the state government"
There is another consideration: The con-
stitutional provision relating to amending
the charter of st. Louis (Article Q. section
22) is that this may be done by the qualified
voters of that city. but the prohibtoTy
words land not otherwise are not there en-
plOyed as they are in section 16 of that ar
ticle, under which Kansas City is given the
power to frame and amend its own charter.
More than this, by section % of the same
article. the power is expressly reserved to
the state to control such matters in St.
Louis. The general assembly shall have
the same power over the city and county of
st. Louis that it has over other cities and
counties of the state says the constitution.
When to these constitutional considerations
is added the fact that Kansas City has.
while st. Louis has not, the benefit of the
enabling act of 1857 Or. S. 1885 sec. 1Sl0-
1892, the vast difference between the rela-
tive rights of legislature and voters to
amend the charters of the respective cities
becomes the more apparent Under these,
my conclusion is that the legislature may
amend the charter of st. Louis. but has no
power, in purely local matter as to me
this seems, to amend the charter of Kan
sas City.
I'm discussing the force and effect of the
enabling act in state eX rel Kansas City vs.
Field 90 Mo, @52). Judge Black says: I'm
der it, laws, though general they may be,
which relate alone to the government of
cities, must yield to the provisions of the
adopted charter" and as this was followed
and its doctrine extended in the Scarritt
case. it is clear to me that the charter is
the supreme law of the city and should
here be followed" Respectfully submitted
III. c. McDOUGAL, City Counselor" "