Kansas City daily journal., 1896-12-27

court a state affair. C. E. SMALL"
The foregoing extract from the opinion
of Attorney c. E. Small, of the firm Of
Gage, Ladd &c Small, the context of which
appears below. would seem to remove the
one objection which has been urged against
the movement for home rule in the mat
ter of the Kansas City police department.
The one question to be settled was: Is,
the police department purely local in
stitution7 If .t is. then Kansas City has
the right to control it. If the fact that
policemen enforce state laws causes the
department to partake of the nature of
state institution. then there was some
doubt as to the legality of the proposed
charter amendment.
Thus far in its campaign for home rule,
the Journal has printed the opinions of
Messrs. C. o. Tichenor, o. H. Dean, F. F.
Rczzelle and now that of C. e. Small, all
of whom unite in saying that the city
charter can be so amended as to give to
Kansas City control of its police depart
ment.
Following is Mr.. small's opinion in full:
MIR. smaIrs Opinion.
There would seem to be little, If any,
doubt that the city charter can be so
amended by the people as to vest complete
power over the police department in the
city the same as it has over the fire de-
partment and water department and every
other department of the city government.
bn r{D nfI caIf Sc
anteed to cities having 100000 inhabitants
or more by the constitution of this state,
which was adopted in 1875. Generally, If
not universally, in all other states In the
Union, the charter of all cities, great and
small are granted by the state legislature,
either by special or under general laws.
But great innovation in the direction of
LEGAL self-government was made by the
constitution of this state. adopted in 1875,
which provides that the people of all cities
having 100000 inhabitants or more shall
have right to frame their own charters.
and which shall 'supersede any existing
charter and amendments thereof and that
= -tfie charter so framed by the people can
only be amended by them and not other
wise
Put it is also provided that such char
ter shall always be in harmony with and
subject to the laws and constitution OF
the state
Since 1875, a number of decisions have
been rendered by the supreme court touch
ing the question, as to just what subjects
tie people of the city can include in their
charters. and what subjects affecting such
cities the legislature ID hill supreme upon.
1.-THE net result of dlf the labors of the
supreme court would seem to be, that on
matters purely local the people of the city
are supreme, but that upon matters which
affect the rest of the state as well as the
city, the stateAlegislature is supreme.
1t f. Purely Local.
so that If the police depaI tment of Kan
sas City is a matter of purely local con-
cern. it can be regulated by provision of
the city charter, and the present state law
on that subject can thereby be repealed.
1T seems to me that bare statement of
the proposition shows that 1t is a purely
local matter with which the rest of the
state has no concern. 1t Is as purely local
as the police court, whose ministers the
police are. The fact that the policemen
make arrests for violations of the state
laws no more makes the police department
of Kansas City state affair than the
fact that the police magistrate may also
punish violations of the state laws makes
purely local matters under the rulings Of
the supreme court, 1t would seem to me.
A Case in Point.
For instance. when our city charter was
first adopted, there was a law of the leg
islature on the statute books regulating
the mode of procedure in assessing dam
ages for opening streets. Our charter also
provided a mode for doing the same, but
different in many respects from that pro-
vided by the state law, and the supreme
court held that, so far as opening streets
in Kansas City was concerned. that was a
matter which concerned Kansas City alone.
and the charter provisions on that subject
were supreme and superseded the state
law. That was the case of state VS.. Field
in goth Mo.
Then in 1894, the court held the Kansas
City park law passed by legislature abso-
lutely void for the reason that the matter
of parks for Kansas City (although some
of them We're TO he located outside the
city limits) was a purely local matter
with which legislature had nothing TO do