The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-02-06
SEDALIA,S LUCK.
The Missouri Supreme Court Authorizes
Capital Removal.


Capital Renewal.
JEFFERSON CRY, Mo-, Feb. 6.-The
people of Missouri Will have a chance
to vote at the election this fall on the
removal of the State capital from
Jefferson City to Sedalia The State
Supreme court yesterday dissolved the
injunction against the Secretary of
State proceeding to carry out the act
for su bmitting the question to a vote
of the State.
The suit was brought by Joseph r.
Edwards property owner of Jeffer-
son City to restrain the Secretary of
State from discharging the duties en-
joined upon him in respect to the sub
hitting to vote of the electors of the
State the proposal, passed by the last
general assem- bly,, for amending the
constitution SO as to provide therein
for the removal of the seat of govern
ment from jefferson City to Sedalia.
Judge Shackelford of the circuit
court granted an injunction and in
reversing his decision the Supreme
court says: 1t has been said that the
right of the judiciary to declare a
statute void and arrest its execution is
one which, in the opinion of all courts,
is coupled with possibilities so
great tnat it is never to be exercised,
except in very clear cases. One de-
partment of the government is bound
to presume that another has acted
right.-State VS.. Addington n Mis-
souri,. III.
''In respect to the subject of amend
ments to the constitution, that instru-
ment declares: The people of this
State have the inherent right to alter
and abolish their constitution and
form of government whenever thew
deem it necessary to their safety and
1n1
not repugnant to the constitution of
the United States. That all just
governments are founded upon the
consent of the people is a maxim
which has been held sound by
the American people since the declara-
ton of independence of 1776. Under
our system the people are the source
retained, and through the action of
the general assembly, control may be
resumed over any subject matter and
changes made in the organic law in
respect thereto.
1.-The general assembly may pro-
pose such amendments to this con-
stitution as majority of the members
deem expedient. The power is I'M
limited and would be the power of
regularly called and constituted gov
eminent to propose specific provisions.
Amendments draw their force from
the action of the assembly which pro-
poses them.
EI"There can be no doubt that the
question of the establishment of the
seat of government is one which is a
proper subject of constitutional con-
troll, and is, therefore, a proper sub
ject for amendment If the people
had seen fit they could have given
power to the general assembly to
change the seat of government upon
any terms they might require. 1t is
plain that in order to secure a removal
of the capital an amendment to the
constitution is necessary. What has
been said in reference to the unlimited
discretion of the general assembly in
passing the amendment should be a
sufficient answer to the objection.
The objection is divided against the
wisdom of the measure and it's ex-
rediency. AS has been said they are
que stions upon which the court has no
power.
THE amendment derives its force
from the people and not from the leg
isiature. 1t does not propose to effect
change in the seat of government,
but to provide a means by which a
change can be effected.
I'VE are of the opinion that the pro-
posed amendment, if adopted by the
people in the manner prescribed by
constitution, would be effectual as
part of the organic law of the state.
We have not discussed the question
whether the remedy by injunction is
in any event available for the purposes
con templated in this case because de-
PENDANT has expressly waived that
question and raised a decision on the
broader grounds, which we have ac-
accordingly considered. The judg-
ment of the lower court is reversed"