The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-03-15
NOT THAT POINT.
Judge HazeR's Decision Was
Not Entirely 0Verruled.
Hurrel Law Is Still Matter of
Doubt.
STILL ANOTHER CASE.
TOpeka's Ordinance Must Yet
Be Tested.
One Hundred Cases in District
Court Awaiting Disposal.

There is now some question whether
the decision of the supreme court hand
ed down in the John Henrik
case from Ellsworth county de-
clared the Hurrel law con-
stitutionaI and whether it reverses
the opinion OF Judge Hazen of the dis
trict court in the 8Ialinda Parrish case.
decided December Is. in which he held
that the city search and seizure
ordinance was invalid as the section of
the Hurrel law granting cities the right
to pass such ordinances is unconstitu-
tionaL
The point that has been raised re-
garding the scope OF the decision of the
supreme court seems to be upon a legal
technicality and it seems that the con-
stitutionality of the Hurrel law may
still be in doubt until the Gray habeas
corpus case, appealed from the police
court. is decided by the higher court.
It is certain that the supreme court
decision in the Ellsworth county case
Overruled part of Judge HazenS deciS-
ion but the contention is made by some
attorneys who have examined the Opin-
ion of the supreme court, that il did
not overrule the vital point in Judge
Hazen's decision and that no reference
was made TO it
Judge Hazen decided in the Parrish
case that the title of the Hurrel law
does not clearly express section seven
IN Ills decision ne Sdlu- the subject
OF comforting power upon cities to pass
ordinances clearly expressed in the
title of the HurreI law as required by
the constitutions The title TO the act is
An act relating to the sale of intoxicat-
ing liquors and the suppression OF
places where such liquors are sold or
used or kept for sale or use contrary to
law >"
The Hurrel law contains two sub
5ects and the subject of section seven,
which attempts to confer power upon
cities to pass ordinances. is not clearly
expressed in the title of the act and
that section is therefore uncOnstitution-
al The ordinance in question which
was passed by virtue of the authority
conferred in said section seven is there
fore void.
In that part of his decision Judge
Hazen was plainly OVerruled by the su-
preme court in the Ellsworth county
case. In sustaining the opinion of the
supreme court, Justice Smith wrote in
the opinion as follows
Section seven relates clearly to the
sale of such liquors and its provisions
are germane to the general language of
the title. No person would be surprised
startled or mislead by finding the mat
ter contained in section seven under the
title which the act bears.
'The chapter under discussion deals
with the same subject throughout its
different sections
1t is not necessary in order to satisfy
the constitutional requirement above re-
1erred TO that the title of a legislative
act should express an abstract or cata-
logue of its contents. 1t is sufficient
that the general purposes of the act be
declared the details provided for the
accomplishment Of that purpose being
mere Incidents
The contention of those who claim
that Judge Hazen's opinion regarding
the constitutionality of the Hurrel law
has not been overruled by the supreme
court, IS on the ground that the ques-
ton of the title covering the contents of
section seven is exactly all that the
higher court decided and that the high
er court did not pass upon the consti-
nationality of the law The contention
Is made that the supreme court passed
simply upon the question presented IN
the briefs and nothing else in the Els
worth county case.
The following is from the syllabus of
the supreme court in the Ellsworth
county case:
section seven Of chapter 2s2 of the
laws of 1901 which confers authority on
cities TO prohibit by ordinance unlawful
sales of intoxicating liquors. is nor
open to the objection that the subject
VI the section is not clearly expressed
IN the TUE of the act as required by
section sixteen, article two. of the con-
stitution"
The part OF Judge Hazen's decision in
which he held the Hurrel law to be nm
constitutional and which the claim is
made that the supreme court in the
guarded decision in the Ellsworth conn
" case did not pass upon, is as fol-
lows:
Section OF the HurreI law confers
power upon cities of the first. second.
and third classes to pass ordinances for
the suppression of places where intoxi-
eating liquors are sold or used in VIOLA
ton or law. Is the comforting of power
upon cities to pass ordinances a s11h-
5ect unto itself2 If il is. then the HI1r-
rel law contains more than one sub
5ect and is violative of section 16 of
art1cie of the constitution.
4ne 1act that the object to be ac-