The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-07-18
But Hopes For an Auditorium
Soon Yet Exist.
No Use to Hold Elections to
Ascertain Sentiment
IFIT DOES NOT COUNT.
People of the J. B. Billiard
Type in the Saddle.
Will the Progressive Element
of Topeka Submit!

Judge Hazen today declared uncon-
stitutional the auditorium bill thereby
blocking the erection of the auditorium,
under the methods pursued un-
less the supreme court should see fit
to reverse his decision. His reason for
declaring the law void is that it is
practically special legislation in that it
places limits so that it applies only to
Topeka. If it were not for the upper
aimit which was inserted in the bill by
the WyandOtte county delegation in the
legislature, the law would have been
valid.
When the bill was framed care was
taken that it should apply TO all cities
having a population of more than 10000.
The idea of making it apply to all cities
of the frst-class was discussed by the
committee which framed it. but in or
der that it might meet with no OppOsi-
tiOn from the representatives from
Wichita. LeavenwOrth. Atchison and
Fort Scott, it was finally decided to
frame it like the old law and make it
apply to all cities with a population of
more than 10000. While the bill was in
the senate. Senator thinner, the Wyan-
dotte county senator. inserted the
amendment. making it apply only to
cities of more tpan 10000 and less than
4O-OOO- The committee which framed
the bill saw that this might endanger
IL, but in order to keep from stirring up
strife it was allowed to go through in
that way, and those having the good
of the city of Topeka at heart depend
ed upon the public spirit of the citizens
to allow the wishes of the great ma
Jority Of the people of the city to be
carried out.
All would have been well had it not
been that some hahitual ObstructiOnists
played the dog in the manger'' act
simply because they could not have
their own way in the matter. A handful
of alleged citizens who have not the
enterprise to do anything for the public
good themselves, have blocked the
wheels of progress in the city because
of their i'll will to the majority of the
people of the city Alleged citizens is
used advisedly, because real citizens
are those who are willing to work for
the good of their city instead Of against
City Attorney Bird will probably car
ry the case to the supreme court and
secure a review of it there as soon as
possible Judge Hazen said Immediate
" after concluding his opinion that he
presumed arrangements could be made
with the members of the supreme court
TO hear the case within few days. Ow-
ing to public interest in it and the
necessity for prompt action, but one of
the attorneys present said this would
be impossible as TWO of the supreme
court judges are out of the state at
present.
The relief for the city is however
probably not through the supreme
court. but through an immediate cleo
uOn to vote bonds under the old law.
There was about so spectators pres
ent in the court room when Judge Ha-
zen gave his opinion. The most of them
were lawyers. and they all gave close
attention To the oDiuiO0 .Tudea Hazeo
said:
This suit is brought to enjoin the
city of Topeka from issuing bonds to
purchase a site and to erect a city
The legislature of 1899 passed an act
authorizing any city of the first-class
having population of more than 10000
and less than 10000 inhabitants to pur-
chase a site for a city building and to
issue bonds for the erection of such
building. and the defendant city is
proceeding under this law to purchase
q site and to issue bonds in the amount
of 100000 for the erection of city
building thereon
The plaintiff contends that this act
COnfers corporate powers, that it is a
special act and is Unconstitutional be
ing ViOlatiVe of section one of article
twelve of the constitution, which pro-
vfdeS that the legislature shall not con-
fer corporate powers by special act. 1t
is admitted by the city that this act
confers corporate powers but it is
claimed that II IS a general act and
therefore not in violation of the CON
stitutiOn.
THE whole question in this case
turns upon the proposition whether the
act in controversy is a special act or
not: if it is, it is void and proceedings
under it should be enjOined; if it is a
general act, the injunction should be re-
fused.
THE act in question limits its opera
ton to cities of the first-claSs having a
population of over thirty thousand and
less than forty thousand inhabitants
and IS intended to and does exclude al
other cities Of the first-class. The act
As general in its terms, but that fact
alone will not make it a general law
We must look to its application to de
termine the character of the act; and il
it IS intended to and does operate upOr
a particular class to the exclusion Ot
other classes similarly situated then il
Is a special act
1T is we'll settled that the legislature
may pass laws making certain classi-
hcations, but such classifcatiOns must
be upon some reasonable ground, some
taing which bears a just ana proper