The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-10-27

this decision could have been made on
the subject of nuisances- There is grave
doubt of the correctness of this decision
A number of very respectable courts
have held that imprisonment may be in
ficted as a punishment under such au-
thority as is conferred upon cities of the
first class.
The court of appeals cites no author
ity in support of its decision and at
tempts no argument to satisfy one Of its
correctness. The question is, in my
judgment, too important to be disposed
of as finality on this case In any
event. I think the ordinance has left in
it ample authority to continue the fight
on the joints. The fines can be made
big enough to make up for the jail SEN
tence.
trict court cannot be affected by this
decision, except as to the right of the
district court, in case OF CONVICTION, TO
sentence a defendant to Imprisonment
as a part of the punishment The cases
can undoubtedly be tried, and II defend
ants are found guilty they may be nned
as much as $500 in each case. The court
of appeals has not held the ordinance
void except as to certain provisions,
which do not apply to the joints
w F. SchOch, one of the attorneys for
Semple, has the following view OF the
decision: THE point involved in this
case is a simple one and easily under
stood The right to imprison as pun
ishrnent for crime is right inherent in
the states. Cities are municiual corpora
tons created by the state, having such
powers and authority only as is granted
to them by the legislature representing
the state. The right to imprison as a
punishment is an extraordinary pro-
ceedins and the courts of other states
have long held that before a city shall
have power to infiict Imprisonment as a
punishment for Offenses under its Ordl-
nances. that the authority so to do must
be expressly granted by the state to the
. al X
mas never expressly or otherwise auth
orized cities in this state to imprison
persons found guilty of offenSes under
ordinances, which OffenSeS are also pun
ishable under the laws of the state.
Consequently cities in this state have
no authority TO imprison as a punish
rnent for any Offenses committed under
its ordinances except for EOn-pay netll
Of polltax This the legislature has ex-
pressIy provided for. This is all there
is in the proposition, and the court of
appeals has only followed a well settled
rtffe of law that seems to have been
duence heretofore. The authorities are
ample and sufficient to sustain the de-
cisi0n. Just rendered. Cities. however,
still have the power to punish by fine all
offenses under it's ordinances and the
power to imprison for the non-p payment
Of such fines Semple in this case was
charged with selling liquor; with keen
ing and maintaining club or place
where liquors were distributed. keeping
and maintaining a nuisance as defined
ia the ordinance. All these propositions
were before the court: and all passed on
by the court-the court holding he could
net be prosecuted for either of the Of
lenses charged. On no other theory
could he have been discharged. The
court further holds that the entire ordt-
nance IS void and it means that all the
appealed cases must be dismissed >
Councilman J. s. Warner, in speaking
Of the decision, said. II suppose the
council will try to draft something to