The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-12-16
LAW MAY BE BAD.
Judge Lobden Takes on Lid ON Local
Legislative Measures.

If the Kansas supreme court agrees
with the decision of Judge C. E. Lobdel
cid win largely be removed from local
bills at the next session of the legislature,
in spite of the recently adopted constitu-
tfonal amendment which provided that the
courts. and not the legislature. should de-
eide whether local bill was necessary. :.
Incidentally in sustaining Judge Dobdell
the supreme court will sustain the much
discussed Barnes high school law which
is now for the first time brought under
the fire of the supreme court batteries
The controversy comes up from the dis
trict court of Scott county. where Charles
w. Proudfit and F. H. c. HamDson. rep
resenting themselves and many others,
county commissioners of Scott county
from levying a mill tax under the
Barnes law for the support swhisch IN IN
building) for the Scott city high school.
The chief question which was raised was
the right of the legislature to pass the
Barns law. which, it is claimed, is a local
bill Judge Lobdel held that the legisia-
Whether a local bill is necessary. and that
unless there is mighty good reason for 1t.
the courts will not interfere with that
decision. The following is a portion of
Judge Lobdelrs opinion:
I'm disposing Of the first question 1T
of special legislation. and with this con-
cession the question becomes close and
delicate one In construlng the recent con-
gtitutional amendment but two WAYS are
open. the one to SO construe 1t as in effect
to prohibit legislation of special or local
character. for II must be conceded that no
local condition can arise in Kansas IN one
community that may not arise in another
community of like population and condi-
ton, end no demand for local legislation
which can not be met by a general law,
applicable to communities or interests
THAT this was not the spirit of the pro-
posed amendment 1 think must be imme-
diately inferred from its language and
scope and in considering this question we
must presume that the legislature knew
end took !nto consideration the law as
declared by courts in reference to this
class of legislation. The law as hereto
fore declared was that the legislature was
the sole judge of the necessity for local
legislation and that the courts had no
power to review or set aside their conclu-
sion The amendment is framed to meet
but one condition and manifestly its only
purpose is to confer upon the courts au-
fhorfty to Investigate and determine the
wisdom or necessity of acts of the legis-
1ature and in extreme cases to disprove or
the authority to legislate in certain in
stances is still left with the legislature the |
must be extreme indeed on which !
q coordinate branch of the government |
will interfere to stay the operation Of leg |
islatiYe discretion once exercised.
with this view of the law 1 am of the |
opinion that the act of the legislature does
not indicate such abuse of the legislative |
prerogative as to call for the interview |
ton of the court, largely for the reason |
that there is no interest which is and |
should be so entirely matter of local |
disposition and control as a public school. "