The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-07-24

| same as it did before the council met
last night. The passage of the pro-
| lection ordinance for certain mer
| chants for certain luxrries and COM
modities, he said. failed to protect If
| the druggists and others keep open
| Sunday he will file a score or more
| of complaints on law violation COM
mitted last Sunday for which he al
ready has evidence. II they close up
tight he will not file any complaints.
| Speaking of the legal aspect of the
affair. Mr.. Nichols said:
Remember that the Sunday labor
ordinance is in section 102; that the
Sunday closing Of stores is in section
103; that section 102 is legislative
enactment TO prevent labor and prob
ably did not mean to operate against
stores; and that section 103 was pass
ed to complement section 102 so that
| the entire subject would be covered.
Our supreme court recently held that
section 102 did Apply to stores. and all
kinds of labor whether toilsome or not;
| thus we have two ordinances apparent
| ly covering the same ground as to
great many callings. The passage of
| the ordinance last night does not in
any manner change the Sunday labor
| law, but the injectment of a couple of
lines into the body of it concerning
section 102 gives the trainers of it and
few other members of the city adj
ministration a childish opportunity to
| argue that the stores can keep open
| all day on Sunday to sell cigars and
| other Injuries and until o'clock to
, sell meats, which really are necessi-
| ties.
THE title to last nights ordinance is
| An ordinance. amending section 103 of
| ordinance No. 2615 as amended by or
| dinance No. 1925 and repeating said or
dinnace No. 2615.' You will notice that
| the title does not mention section 102
| in any way. If the members of the
council had been at all diligent in
reading their revised ordinance
| they. would have found there
in direct prohibition, tell
ing them distinctly that they had
no power to inject into this ordinance
anything concerning any other ordi-
nance. Section 1913. page 56 of the re-
| vised ordinances-a copy of which each
i councilman has in his desk-says, And
provided further, That no ordinance
| shall contain more than one subject,
which shall be clearly expressed In It's
title; and no ordinance shall be re-
vived or amended unless the new ordl-
names contain the entire ordinance
revived or the section or sections
amended, and the section or sections
so amended shall be repealed There Is
nothing in the title to this new ord1-
nance of last night that mentions sec
ton 102 but 1t does specifically men,
ton section 103, neither does 1t repeal
section 102, but it does specifically re-
peal section 103 and its amendments.
"Our supreme court has held time
and again that such an ordinance as
this is void as to the ordinance at
tempted to be injected INTO it. but not
|, actually mentioned in the title
Whether it is good or not as to sec
ton 1913 we do not care. Our fight is
entirely on the Sunday labor ordi-
nance, and we know, as does every
lawyer, that it is not good as to that.
Anyone who desires to inform himself
on the decisions of the supreme court
/, holding as above stated can read Steb-
bins VS.. Mayer, 3S KS. 573 and Mo.
, Pac Ry., VS. City of Wyandotte, A
KS 80.
: when the city attorney drew this
; ordinance he must have known that
it had no force as to section 102, and
doubtless framed 1t because ordered
! to do SO by the mayor. At any rate,
we do not believe he will say pro-
fessionally that he THINKS it good as
applying to said section 1902; although
it is of no consequence as concerns the
. | present dispute between the mayor
and the theaters unless 1t does apply
to said Sunday labor law, section 102.
I'VE know that the police judge is a
,, lawyer, and are satisfied that it will
have no effect on him IN his decisions.
Mayors and councilmen are sometimes
governed by their prejudices, but
there is always the remedy offered by
fully realize we are entitled, and will
confidently appeal
} "Just why the council did not
!. amend section 102, IL they really de-
sire to change its effect. it is inn
. possible to understand. unless it be
that they were petitioned to do So and
wish to show the public that there is
circuitous route that suits them bet
ter. Doubtless they wish to force
upon the people the idea that petitions
are no longer an American privilege"