The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1917-11-20
Supreme Court Hands Down
Important Decision Today.
Getty Kansas City Amendment
Was LOOphOle in Law.
MONEY Will Be REFUNDED
Amount Paid In in Topeka Will
Be Returned to "DOnOr."
Case Was Taken Up to Su-
preme Court From Shawnee.

In a special opinion today, the Kan
sas supreme court knocked out the
! - tax law as applying to cities of
the first class The action to test the
law was brought in Topeka and in
volved the constitutionality of the act
as passed by the 1917 legislature.
While the supreme court held that
/ poll tax may be assessed against first
! class cities, it upset the law because of
the Getty amendment, which eX-
/ empted Kansas City, Kan.
! 1t was the Getty amendment which
saved Topeka, Wichita and other first
class cities from payment of the tax.
/ Had not the Wyandotte county sena-
tor injected his amendment exempt
/ ing cities having a population or over
! S0OOG the validity of the law Woulu
not have been impaired Whlle the
/ court held the present law lnVahu, II
did not restrict or deny the right of a
/ state legislature to at some future ses-
sion enact a perfect waterproof law
/ Droviding for a poll tax for cities or
! the first class.
/ Opened in Shawnee.
Original proceedings in mandamus
were brought in the shawnee county
district court to determine Wnether
( the present statute should be made ap-
nIicable to cities of the first class
under the recent amendments by the
state legislature. An alternative writ
had been issued This writ directed
the enforcement of the law as it stood
ITnder a motion to quash the writ from
the lower court, the supreme court
| was called upon to interpret the act
| and meet challenge as TO the VahuiIy
of the act. The courts ruling holds
! the law in its present form invalid
| Law makers from first class city
! districts seemed to be taking a nap
when the poll tax law was up Tor con-
1 Sideration. The trainers OF the new
law had for their purpose an extern
sion of the poll tax law to affect cities
of the first class, just as it now affects
smaller towns and rural districts. Al
tho the decision of the supreme court
several years ago to the erect that the
poll tax law of 1911 did not apply to
I cities of the first class, it was some
what influenced by language used in
another statute. That statute was also
enacted in the session OF six years ago
/ The repeal of such other statute, the
court today held, did not change the
I Interpretation of the poll tax law IN
| that regard.
Getty's Trick.
In the recent legislative session. the
house passed the amendment provid-
ing for an extension of the poll tax
provision to cities of the first class.
The measure was up for final pas
| sage in the senate. Getty of Wyan
! dotte told the senate he didn't mind
other first class cities paying a poll
tax But he preferred to exempt his
I own people. So he injected this
amendment: Provided. however.
/ that this act shall not apply to cities
I having population of over 10000"
/ 1t that amendment which was ul-
I TINA tely fatal TO the bill.
/ Not until several months after the
I legislature went home did the repre-
sentatives from first class cities learn
what had happened to them. Then
began the litigation in Shawnee coun-
! ty courts to set aside the amendment
! extending the operation of the poll
tax law.
Mason's Opinion.
/ Justice Mason. who wrote the opin-
/ ion in the poll tax case today. com
mented on the law in his syllabus in
part as follows:
'Altho it has been determined that
the legislature may exempt residents
of cities of the first class from poll
tax for road purposes to which other
/ cities of the state are subject. it does
, not follow that a similar distinction
more than $4,000 inhabitants and
D other cities, governed by the same
laws and differing from them only in
having less than that population
ne amendments maze IN Fl9l1 to
I the section imposing a poll tax for
road purposes do not show a purpose
3 to make any change in the classes OF
persons who are liza BILE To such tax
and therefore the amended section
. is to be regarded as having no appli-
cation to residents of cities of the first
class, that construction having al
ready been placed upon the section as
it existed prior to that time
In that situation the addition of a
proYiso declaring that the act shall
not apply to cities having a population
of over $4,000, being essentially mega
tive in its character, cannot be regard
ed as having the affirmative effect of
making change in the class Of per
sons liable for the tax
One City Exempt
Justice Mason. sustained by the
concurrence of the entire court, held
that the Getty amendment must be in
terpreted as merely declaratory of the
fact that cities of the size of Kansas
City Kansas, were not affected rather
than as indicating a purpose to en-
large the scope of the bill as il had
originally beer drawn. 1T follows" ?"
says the opinion. that residents Of
cities Of the first class are not liable
to the tax. and the motion to ouash
the alternative writ must be sus-
tanned
Kansas City, Kansas. was the only
first class city exempted from nrovis-
ions of the law Yet all first ella 90
cities are governed by the same gen
eral laws. In the opinion Of the
court. the discrimination between
cities, rather than the general opera
tion Of poll tax law for cities de-
sstroyed the validity Of the act
r.raTr- IT,.