The Topeka state journal., 1900-10-06
PARSONS LOSES.
Supreme Court Decides Famous
Asylum Case.
Board of Charities Injunction
is Sustained.
LOCATING COMMITTEE
Court Decides That 1t Exceeded
Its Powers.
Had No Right to Purchase the
Land.
Duties Ended When Site Was
Selected.

Parsons has lost the asylum-at least
for the time being. The state supreme
court today handed down a unarimOus
decision affirming the decision of the
district court CT Clay county. The Clay
county court granted an injunction to
prevent the board of charities from ac-
cepting deeds for the site at Parsons for
new state insane asylum and also to
restrain the board from making a con-
tract in the name of the state for the
erection of buildings to be used as an
insane asylum.
The contentious upon which the Clay
county decision, perpetually enjoining
the board from closing the contract with
Parsons, are as follows:
81. Chapter 13 of the laws of 1899, ap-
propriating 100000 for the erection of an
insane asylum, for securing a site and
providing a manner officiating the same,
does not authorize the legislative COM
mittee provided for in the act to do more
than select a site consisting of GAO acres
of land within three miles of the cor
pOrate limits of some city upon which
the asylum shall be built. The commit
tee was not vested with power to pur-
chase or Tx price to be paid by the
state for land deemed by it suitable as a
location for such institution.
2 The act above mentioned does not
specifically point out how the state may
obtain title to the lands selected by the
committee a site for the asylum. This
omission is supplied by reference to
chapter 46 of the laws OF 1881 comforting
power upon the boards of trustees or
managers of the several state 'institu-
tiOns to commence and carry out con-
demnatiOn proceedings to that end, and
to section Is of chapter 100 of the laws
of 1891 comforting like authority upon
the state board of public works.
g. It being the expressed intent of the
legislature that the asylum shall be built
on a. site determined upon by the COM
mittee, whose action in respect thereto
is made final, and a3le ssSIsc liOE having
been made in the manner provid = by
law, it is the duty of the board of truS-
tees of the institutions for the education
of the blind, the deaf and dumb, and the
asylums for the insane, or the state
board of public works, to condemn, on
behalf of the state, the land embraced
in the site so chosen under either one or
the other Of the acts mentioned in the
above paragraph.
Il. This suit was properly begun and
prosecuted in the district court by the
county attorney of Clay county.
IS It is not necessary that a transcript
which is made the basis of proceedings
in error in this court should be prepared
by the clerk pursuant to an order Of the
trial court
The opinion is lengthy and compre-
hensive, and was written by Justice
Smith. He discusses the technical terms
of the law. He calls attention to the
fact that the legislative committee
selected a site and agreed to pay $28,0O0
for the land Continuing Justice Smith
says:
THE important question to be de-
cided is whether or not this legislative
committee was vested with power, un-
der the act above mentioned, to bar
again for and fix price for the site OF
the proposed asylum which would make
it obligatory upon the said state board
of trustees, or other state officer, to ac-
cept. 1t will be noticed that the appro-
priation of 900 is made for the pur-
pose, among others, Of securing a site.
The legislative committee is authorized
to select the site, and further to de-
termine whether a suitable site, adapt
ed to the needs of such an institution,
can be procured and TO dtermine such
location by ballot Subdivision of Sec
ton 2 reads:
% Such action of said committee shall
be deemed final and conclusive, and
such asylum shall be declared to be
located by the action of a majority of
such committee. and said asylum shall
be built pursuant to the provisions Of
this act and of law governing the con-
construction of said institutions
while the first section following the
language of the title appropriates money
for the purpose of securing a site, there
is no manner expressly pointed out in
the law for the obtaining CT it. The
word purchase is nowhere employed.
AS before stated. the purpose of the
committees appointment was to select
a site and its duties were expressly
pointed out in subdivision 2 of section 2,
which required it to determine whether
a suitable site adapted to the needs of
such institution, could be procured
In concluding Justice Smith said:
1T was within the power of the law
makers themselves to designate a place
where the institution should be built,
but they chose to delegate this author
ity to a committee of their members,
making the selection by the latter con-
elusive. Having chosen a site the
power of the committee was exhausted,
and the duty then devo1Ved upon the
plaintiffs in error, or upon the state
board of public works, under the stat
utes above cited, to institute condenn-
nation proceedings, as in other cases, to
determine the value of the property
taken to the end that title to the same
be vested in the state
This is the case which occasioned so
much excitement at the time of the ac-
tfon of the committee. Charges of cor
ruption were made but they did not
enter into the lawsuit.
PEST HOUSE CASE
The case of the city of Kansas City ct
al VS.. Bruno Hobbs ct al was reversed.
The court of common pleas granted an
City restraining it from building a pest
house within half a mile Of a certain
point in the city The supreme court de-
cided that there had been no movement
on the part Of the city to build the pest
house and that the mere threats or dec
larationS of an intention to do or per-
form the act in question are not suffi-
cient to constitute grounds for the in
junction and it was therefore Dissolved.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The following opinions were handed