The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-03-08
Supreme Court Decides Hurrel
Act Must Stand.
Decision Covers Feature With
Reference to Cities.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Cities Have Right to Pass Such
Measure.
Decision of Judge Hazen There
fore Reversed.


down an opinion upholding that part of
the Hurrel liquor law giving cities the
right to pass ordinances to suppress
nuisances and providing for search and
seizure" This is direct reversal of
Judge T1azen's decision in the district
court of Shawnee county a short time
hago.
4 The opinion is rendered il a case from
Ellsworth county, in which John Hen
rink was convicted under an ordinance
passed by the city of Wilson and based
upon the Hurrel law. He appealed the
case on the ground that the title of the
HurreI law is defective in that it says
nothing about granting powers to cities,
but the supreme court holds that the
title is all right and the Hurrel law is
good. The opinion was written by JUS
tice Smith and is as follows:
The question involved in this case is
whether the title of chapter 232 of the
laws of 1901, commonly called the Hur-
rel act, is sufficiently expressive of the
subject legislated upon in section seven
of the law.
Section seven grants authority to
cities to prohibit by ordinance illegel
sales of intoxicating liquors, to sup
press common nuisances defined in 9TH
er sections of the act, to provide by or
dinance for the search of the premises
where such nuisanceS are alleged to ex-
ist, and the seizure and destruction of
all Intoxicating liquors, bottles, glasses.
bars, etc, Used in maintaining the same.
The title of chapter 232 reads: AN
act relating to the sale of Intoxicating
liquors and the suppression of places
where such liquors are sold or used or
kept for sale or use contrary to law
All the provisions of the law except
sections seven and eight relate solely to
prosecutions instituted by the state
The claim is made by counsel for ap-
~alI hot he no f1Cn
act on. cities of the first. second and
third class to prohibit unlawful sales of
Intoxicating liquors and to suppress
nuisances is not indicated in the title of
the law as directed by section sixteen,
article two, of the constitution which
reads: mo bill shall contain more than
one subject, which shall be clearly ex-
pressed in the title" ETC.
The question raised is not new to this
court In Werner VS.. EdmiSton, "a Kan
147, it was held that under law en-
titled ITO restrain dramshops and tay-
erns, and to regulate the sale of IN
toxicating liquors. a section providing
that anyone causing intoxication of an
other should be compelled to pay for his
care while so intoxicated, and that ev-
cry person who was injured in his prop
erty or means of support by an intoxi-
Gated person in consequence of intox1-
cation, might recover therefor of tie
person causing the same, came fairly
within the scope of the title.
In an able discussion of the question,
found in Philpin vs. McCarty, Supt.,
&c, "a Kan. 1893, the court through
Brewer, justice, lays down the rule that
the constitutional requirement is not to
be enforced in any narrow or technical
spirit, and quoting from The state ex
rel. Weir VS.. The County Judge of
Davis County, Iowa, 280-2S2, says:
1.-The intent of this provision of the
constitution was, to prevent the union,
in the same act, of incongruous matter,
and of objects having no connection, no
relation-" "
And again from Cooley on Constitu-
tional Limitations, as follows:
There has been general DISPOSE
ton to construe the constitutional pro-
rasS legislation by a construction whose
strictness is unnecessary to the accom-
plishment of the beneficial purposes for
which it has been adopted -
In the case of In re Pinkney, petition
er. Al. SO, a law entitled "An act to de-
clare unlawful trusts and combinations
in restraint of trade and products, and
to provide penalties therefor was held
to be sufficiently comprehensive to jus
tify the inclusion of section in the act
to prevent combinations from control
ling the cost or rate of insurance.
Johnston, justice, in discussing the ques-
ton collects all of the decisions in this
state up to that time bearing upon the
point. It is said in this opinion:
Another rule recognized and follow
ed by all courts in determining the valid
ity of legislative enactments is, that
they will not be declared void if they
can be upheld upon any reasonable
grounds. If their invalidity is a mat
ter of any reasonable doubt, the doubt
must be resolved in favor of the act"
The same principle was enunciated by
this court through Horton, chief justice,
in commissioners of Cherokee county
VS.. the state, ex REL, SO Kan. 337-339,
where it is said:
I'VE are not to declare an act of the
legislature unconstitutional unless the
roo a m a