The appeal is from a judgment holding unconstitutional an Act of the 1956 General Assembly (1956, c. 16; KRS 95.851 to 95.885) establishing a new form of retirement and pension system for the police and fire-departments of cities of the second class-The Act is mandatory as to those second-class cities which prior to 1956 had established pension systems for police and firemen under former statutes (the appellee City of Paducah is in this category), and is optional as to other second-class cities. The Act requires the city to make contributions to the pension fund, upon an actuarially determined basis, out of the general' fund of the city, and it is this provision that raises the question of constitutionality..
The opinion of the lower court was that the part of the Act relating to the police department, if standing alone, would not be unconstitutional, but that the part relating to the fire department was unconstitutional, and that the two parts could not be severed, so that the entire Act must be held invalid.
The holding that the Act was invalid as to the fire department was based upon City of Lexington v. Thompson,
As concerns
police
departments, the decisions of this Court took a different course. In 1907, in Ex parte City of Paducah,
“The theory that the right of local self-government inheres in the municipalities of this state is essentially unsound, and is based upon the now discarded doctrine that the Constitution of this state is a grant or delegation of power by the people of the state to the state government, and is not, as is now generally recognized, a limitation upon a power which, merely by virtue of its sovereignty, would otherwise be absolute. * * * ”
As concerns Section 181 of the Constitution, the Schupp case again held, as in Ex parte City of Paducah, that the maintenance of a city police force is not a matter of purely municipal concern or purpose, but is a matter of general public concern. The Court said (
“ * * * the general public is interested in the maintenance of order in all municipalities of the commonwealth, and the General Assembly may by general laws, require municipal corporations to take such steps and to impose such taxes as will provide for the maintenance of order. * * * ”
In the foregoing discussion, it has been made evident that there are two grounds of attack upon the constitutionality of the Act now in question, as it relates to firemen. One is that the Act infringes an inherent right of local self-government, and the other is that it violates Section 181 of the Constitution. We will first consider ground No. 1.
As hereinbefore pointed out, the validity of the theory of an inherent right of local
*518
self-government was severely questioned in Campbell v. Board of Trustees,
In Callis v. Brown,
“The general rule is that in the absence of a constitutional provision safeguarding it to them, municipalities have no right to self-government which is beyond the legislative control of the state. * * * ”
In Allen v. Hollingsworth,
“Apart from restraints of the organic law, the Legislature has plenary powers in respect to the establishment and regulation of the government of municipalities, and such divisions of government possess only those powers that the state, through the Legislature, has conferred upon them, expressly or impliedly, and those granted powers may be enlarged or diminished in the discretion of the superior body, for the municipalities are derivative creations.
In Klein v. City of Louisville,
224 Ky.
624,
See also Adams v. Burke,
In 37 Am.Jur., Municipal Corporations, sec. 77, pp. 690 to 692, it is stated that most jurisdictions have discarded the theory of an inherent right of local self-government, and hold that such right exists only to the extent conferred or recognized by express constitutional provisions or to the extent necessary to protect against the taking of property held in a private or proprietary capacity.
We have concluded that the time has come for this Court to rej ect, positively and unequivocally, the theory that a right of local self-government inheres in Kentucky municipalities. We now do so, and we overnile City of Lexington v. Thompson,
This brings us to a consideration of Section 181 of the Constitution, the introductory phrase of which is: “The General Assembly shall not impose taxes for the purposes of any county, city, town or other municipal corporation * * *.” As previously indicated, this phrase has been construed to mean that the General Assembly cannot require a city to impose a city tax for strictly local purposes, but can require a city to impose a city tax for purposes of general public or state-wide concern. Whether this is the proper con.struction of the constitutional provision is a question about which we will have something to say at a later point in this opinion, but for the purposes of the decision of the particular issue in this case we may treat it as being the proper construction. We also will treat the constitutional provision as prohibiting not only the requirement of the levy of a city
tax
for local purposes, but the requirement of the
expenditure of general city funds
for such purposes. See Kenton Water Co. v. City of Covington,
We are confronted with two cases (McDonald v. City of Louisville,
Previous decisions have classed the following matters as being of general public, rather than purely local, concern within the meaning of Section 181 of the Constitution:
Schools
(City of Louisville v. Commonwealth,
The foregoing cases disclose (not surprisingly) that the Court has considered such things as education, agriculture, health and welfare to be matters of general public concern. We feel that public safety is equally a matter of such concern. So we conclude that Section 181 of the Constitution does not prohibit the General Assembly from requiring cities to levy taxes or expend city funds for the purposes of police and fire departments, and we overrule McDonald v. City of Louisville,
Our holding is that the grounds upon which the circuit court held the 1956 Act to be unconstitutional are not sustainable. Before discussing a further ground of unconstitutionality that was asserted in, but rejected by, the circuit court, we deem it appropriate to pose a query as to the correctness of the construction that previous decisions have placed on Section 181 of the Constitution.
As hereinbefore indicated, Section 181 has been interpreted as a denial of authority to the General Assembly to require a city or county to levy taxes for strictly local purposes. However, in Miller v. State Building Commission,
The language of Section 181 plainly and clearly conveys the meaning recognized in the Miller case. With this meaning it has an obvious purpose — to- prohibit the General Assembly, through its taxing power, from evading by indirection the limits on the tax rates of cities and counties imposed by Section 157 of the Constitution. So we think the only question is whether Section 181, in addition to this meaning, can also have the meaning given it in previous decisions.
That the section was not intended to have the additional meaning is suggested by the following considerations: (1) It is very doubtful that the framers of the Constitution would have intended the section to have two entirely different meanings; (2) in order to give the section the second meaning it is necessary to read words into it; (3) no real protection is afforded to local governments under the second meaning, because the General Assembly could preempt all of the taxing power of the local governments by requiring tax levies for matters of “general public concern”; and (4) since the General Assembly, under Section 156 of the Constitution, has complete control over the “organization and ■powers” of cities, and can prescribe what officers, what form of government and what agencies they shall have, and what services they shall perform, there is little that can be accomplished by a limitation on the power of the state to require them to levy taxes.
It. is not necessary in this opinion to de-. cide, and we do not decide, the question we have raised as to the true meaning of Section 181. However, we have felt that the question merited discussion, because it is within the area of the problems of relationships between state and local governments with which this opinion has been concerned, and it will deserve careful consideration in future cases in that area.
There remains for consideration the contention of the appellee that the 1956 Act violated Section 51 of the Constitution in two respects: First, in that the title did not adequately or fairly express the subject of the Act; and second, in that the Act amended existing statutes without reenacting and publishing them at length.
The title was “An Act establishing retirement and benefit funds for members of the police and fire departments in cities of the second class.” All of the provisions of the Act
relate
to that subject. The appellee argues that the title does not give any notice that the Act contains provisions for contributions from city funds, and for investment of the pension funds, including provisions for making up deficiencies arising from investment losses. We think any reasonable person would assume from the title that the Act must contain some provisions as to the source of the pension funds established by the Act, and as to the handling of the funds. A title need not be an index or table of contents for the Act. Guthrie v. Curlin, Ky.,
*521
As concerns the contention that the Act amends existing statutes without setting them forth at length, the simple answer is that the Act does not purport to amend any existing statute, but merely states that it is intended to supersede certain existing statutes to the extent that they apply to second-class cities. Section 51 of the Constitution does not require that statutes which are amended or repealed merely by implication, or by the superseding effect of the later enactment, be republished and set forth at length. Link v. Commonwealth,
The judgment is reversed, with directions to enter a judgment in conformity with this opinion.
