*1 Godfrey PADBERG, Murphy, P. Samuel B. Margulis Softer, Harry Arthur S. N. Members, constituting All Board of Election Commissioners St. Louis Coun Missouri, ty, Plaintiffs-Respondents, ROOS, County Supervisor,
Lawrence K. John O’Hara, Osborn, Rimmel, Maurice A. Gerald Murphy, Jr., Edward E. Brainerd W. La Tourette, Jr., Boris M. Martin and Maurice Stewart, County Council, L. Members of the Dorothy Wilson, County Clerk, and St. County, Missouri, Municipal Louis Corporation, dants-Appellants.
Defen
No. 51138.
Supreme Missouri, Court of En Banc.
April 11, 1966.
Rehearings July 11, Denied *2 Barken, Louis, respond- for
Norman St. Sof- Padberg, Murphy, Margulis and ents ter, constituting Election all Board County. Com’rsof St. Louis Louis, respond- Lashly, for H. St. John O’Hara, ents Maurice Osborn John Martin, Louis Boris members of St. M. County Council. County Stohr, Donald Coun- St. Louis J. County
selor, Moore, Joseph Deputy B. defendants; Counselor, Clayton, Nor- Parker, Louis, special counsel. man C. St. FINCH, Judge. deсlaratory judg- appeal
This is an from a pro- ment held that two ordinances posing amendments to the Charter (herein referred to of St. Louis Charter) did not receive sufficient passage to a vote and submission votes has St. Louis Since March county. a charter Its Charter been pursuant adopted to the Constitution Missouri, VI, 18(a)- 1945, Article Sections (l), V.A.M.S. proposals is covered submitting Amendment voters Article VIII of the go Charter. right Section 82 that had no behind provides thereof three their validity methods of amend- ordinances to test these, ment. “By One of 82(2), opinion passage. are of the We adopted by the Council and sub- and maintain Board was entitled to file *3 mitted to the general special 87.02, voters at a and Civil Rule action. V.A.M.R. approved election and by majority (all of those references to statutes Section 527.020 voting proposition.” on the 1959, V.A.M.S.) specifically are to RSMo respect provide declaratory for relief with September 1964, 3345, pro- Ordinance municipal questions of ordinances and posing amendment of the Charter to make validity construction or thereof. The case County Highway Engineer office of ap- McGee, of Kansas pointive elective, rather than and Ordinance declaratory judg- involved a by to amend extending sys- the merit Mayor by ment action Kansas and its tem emplоyees, to certain were introduced a commit- against members of Council in County Council, govern- which is the petition with tee had filed an initiative who ing and legislative body County. of the adjudicated question to be Council. yea ordinances received four and three justified was whether the Council votes, nay both approved by County were proposal in to the refusing to submit the Supervisor, the executive officer of the The court did decide for a vote. County, and then by County certified question initia- presented held that the Clerk -to the Board of Election Commis- petition proposing such tive ordinance sioners to be submitted to the voters on. fatally submitted defective and need not be November peti- proposed to a in the initiative vote as that the trial tion. think it is clear We When two ordinances were received in overrul- court this instance was correct by County Board of Election Commis- appellants to dismiss the ing the motion of sioners it took position that the ordi- petition ground of lack herein on the nances had not received a sufficient number capacity the action. of the Board to maintain of votes for passage and were invalid and should not be submitted to a vote of the There are seven members people. The members of the Board in- Appellants or- Council. contend that these stituted an action for declaratory judgment amendments, proposing dinances charter to determine whether or not the ordinances ballot, for the form of fixing had validly'passed been for submission the to a amendments of the charter submission voters. The three Councilmen who had majority people require only a vote of the against voted adoption of these two ordi- vote, votes. which would be four affirmative answer, nances filed an counterclaim and respondents’ It that five votes contention cross claim which they asserted the in- necessary passage. were validity of the County, ordinances. The County Super- Council аnd the pro- 82(2) be noted that Section will visor filed an answer and a counterclaim simply for amendment vides seeking a mandatory injunction requiring (and approval of adopted by the Council the submission of the ordinances to a vote voters). specify The section does not disposition Our of the case must be the vote such amendment require does not a detailed recital of these passed by had the Council. If Section 82 complex rather pleadings. specifically, re-
stated the number of votes A was raised right quired passage, the section would as.to of the Board of Election Commissioners to complete been within itself and there maintain they action. It is urged have been no room for doubt. It does were in a capacity only ministerial however, specify, so neces- and hence it is sary plates passage by provided majority look elsewhere in the Charter to vote as question. generally in determine that for ordinances Section 13 emergency whether to be treated as Appellants rely 13 Article under neces- ordinances thus III deals with ordinances Charter. sitating This in- five affirmative votes. generally and resolutions and includes the pro- volves first determination whether following; by a “An affirmative vote relating visions of the Charter majority the entire of the members of proc- ordinances are even pass any necessary be ordi- Council shall secondly amendment, ess charter pro- except nance or resolution as otherwise whether, applicable, ordinances were if these Appellants maintain vided this charter.” Of measures. applies to provision, which that this charter govern- generally, applied to and order: ordinances required on the
ed the vote *4 legisla- is the nature of the act of a What Respondents, on the other amendments. body tive in amend- proposing constitutional III, procedural requirements speci- hand, ment? Do rely 18 of Article on Section (or fied charter) in the constitution which as follows: respeet the legislation generally apply to to require the “Emergency ordinances shall handling proposed of amend- constitutional five less than affirmative vote of not all ments ? Do such as ones for ef- take and shall members of the Council acts to the or resolutions to be submitted enactment. immediately their fect veto, approval officer for ones executive ordi- be those Emergency ordinances shall reading, specifying the number and times of following: relating to the nances requirements the of the and ones as to title “(1) an election or Calling con- being considered to the statute any proposal to of the submission аmending process? stitution people; early question Exactly arose in the this support of for the “(2) Appropriations Hollingsworth case of of et al. v. State payment of and the government in Virginia, 3 Dall. decided L.Ed. debts; County’s interest on the principal and question 1798. It involves the of whether anticipation “(3) Borrowing of funds the Eleventh to the Constitu Amendment taxes; adopted. of tion had been of the United States proposed by two- This amendment had been rates; “(4) Fixing tax Rep thirds of both the House Senate zoning ordi- to the “(5) Amendments pursuant resentatives to Article V revision of nance, general provided that rati subsequently had been Constitution to be deemed zoning shall The required fied number states. ordinance; be an basis attack on the amendment on of the preservation immediate “(6) The I, that Article the Constitu welfare, in health, safety and peace, public been tion and had not also was de- has been ordinance the which part, as provides, That section followed. clared.” follows: charter Respondents assert Order, Resolution, to Vote "Every for sub- provided ordinances amendment which the Concurrence Senate people and proposals to mission necessary may Representatives be House of 18(1), language of Section within the fall question of (except Adjournment) aon which emergency ordinances making them shall presented he io President of votes. affirmative required five States; shall and before Same United him, Effect, or be- approved take determine shall'be question we must ing him, amending disapproved by repassed ordi- shall be charter passage of whether and House 82 contem- two thirds of the Senate referred nances bill, Representatives, only according shall general appropriation to the Rules and which prescribed Limitations on account of of a Bill.” embrace matters Case more (Emphasis supplied.) appropriated, shall contain moneys are ex clearly be subject, than whiсh shall one Resolution, pointed It was out that the supplied.) (Emphasis pressed its title.” following passage by both houses of Con- propos that the ordinance It was contended gress, had not been to the Presi- submitted invalid be amendment “was ing the charter States, pursuant dent to said United specify the contents title did not cause the specified Section 7 of Article I which court This proposed amendment.” order, every resolution, (except or vote said, 993: “We then 1. c. adjournment) be so sub- should question as therefore with the confronted argued mitted. When the case was in the requirements of the whether the Supreme Court of the United States ordinary ordinances applying the titles of proposition advanced, Mr. Justice ordi any application titles stated, can, surely Chase “There be no neces- nances, legislative ac or other resolutions sity negative to answer that argument. The submitting tions to the voters applies only ordinary the President points out charter amendment.” court legislation. cases of do nothing He has City of provision of the that the Charter proposition, adoption, with the of amend- amendments, initiation of St. Louis for ments to court, Constitution.” The people,was similar by a vote of the followed *5 opinion, a unanimous held that the Eleventh Missouri in the to the method contained Amendment сonstitutionally adopted, of a and in the constitutions Constitution thereby establishing principle that when then ob The court majority of the states. legislative a body acting in a constitution construing serves, “In 163 1.c. 993: S.W.2d making rather legislative capacity, than a universally provisions held such it has been provisions relating of the Constitution proposing an amend legislature, that the requirements to legislation do to ment, ordinary legisla exercising is not its apply. not power special organ acting but a tive as This same basic principle has been purpose of constitu government for the followed in the In decisions of this state. [City tional ex rel. amendment. State McKittrick, Stаte inf. Atty. ex rel. ex Gen. 670, Hackman, 202 273 Mo. Memphis] v. al., Kirby 988, Ham v. et 349 Mo. 163 S.W. 410, 7; Lesueur, 132 S.W. Edwards v. 990, 2d validity this court considered the 815; People ex rel. 1130, 33 31 S.W. L.R.A. amendment to the Charter of the 128, Ramer, P. 62 160 Colo. [Stewart] of St. Louis. The Board of Aldermen had 1032; Refining Sugar State v. American proposed an ordinance entitled: “An Ordi Co., 407, 742; Opinion 68 Re 137La. So. submitting proposed nance amendment 673, 544, 5 Justices, A. 118 Me. 107 the Charter of of St. Louis to held In Lesueur case we A.L.R. 1412. qualified city, voters of the applying requirement that the constitutional therefor, for an election to be held and for ordinary bills be read three that thereat, voting the manner of and for the apply to passage times before final did not publicаtion of this ordinance.” Section submitting joint and concurrent resolution of Article IV the Charter of the bill, Cooney provided that, except a In St. Louis “No constitutional amendment.1 majority 1. The Lesueur was one in which this hut it had not ease ceived a been read on vote days by property eourt considered a suit different three enjoin Secretary Assembly. State As in owner to from each house of the General submitting quotation Kirby of the to the voters from the case dicates, state a constitutional amend court held in the Lesueur whereby requirement government ment the seat of that the of three read case required ings would have been moved from Jefferson City did Constitution apply proposing resolution re consti to Sedalia. The had to a resolution Foote, III, Ga. 83 S.E. cifically, Ann.Cas. it that was contended Article 1916B, 1001, directly it 31,3 8,4 held IV, that the Section and Article Section were requirement constitutional regard violated.
title of legislative application bills had no history The court discusses the
joint and submitting concurrent resolutions provisions joint resolu- and concludes that constitutional amendments.”2 court The tions, III, in Article as that term is used held provision that the charter relative to resolutions, concurrent the title to all bills had no relation to charter IV, used in are those Article amendment. force and ef- resolutions have the The case of State ex rel. v. Atter- fect of The court then concludes law. Jones Mo:, bury, did involve the concurrent resolution making procedural constitution in charac- amending'proc- was administrative or ess, ter, but does it illustrate the fact it did not the force and further provisions law, dealing constitutional effect of submission to and that its legislative activity.are required limited to acts the Governor was not Legislature performed legislative provisions question. in its ca- constitutional pacity and holding, do not to actions when the so that while recognized this court Legislature is acting nonlegislative provisions gen- in a ca- the two constitutional used pacity. Atterbury eral, they pertained language, case involved manda- all inclusive compel Comptroller approve only Legislature mus to to acts of the when expenses capacity. in harmo- legislative in its This is incurred an interim ny in Missouri committee A with the earlier decisions joint member. committee juvenile conclu- delinquency by a con- hereinbefore discussed and with the was created Supreme United adopted by current resolution both houses sion of Court of the Hollingsworth case wherein Assembly. validity General of States the execu- (presentation the resolution was such attacked on the basis *6 adoption prо- title, that its was in violation of signature, having proper tive for visions of the Missouri because Constitution reading resolution three different on the presented the resolution not to the days, application have no etc.) were held to not Governor for his consideration and was proposals amend the to resolutions or to proceeded upon Spe- as in the case of a bill. Constitution. approved by governor tutional and that it had been amendment be- the it shall validly passed assembly general submitted should be When the come law. adjourns, period of to a vote of thir- or recesses for a may days more, governor ty re- or contаining
2. For cases from other states. any forty-five days bill turn within principle helpful discussions of this secretary resolution to the office dealing leg provisions constitutional approval or reasons state with his requirements are not islative disapproval.” by acting Legislature to acts when making capacity, its constitution see the 8, IV, follows: reads as 4.Article Atty. cases of Commonwealth ex rel. Gen. “Every concur- to which the resolution Griest, 396, 505, 46 A. 50 196 Pa. repre- house of of the senate and rence Gonzales, L.R.A. and Hutcheson v. except may necessary, be sentatives N.M. P.2d 140. going joint adjournment, questions into session, amending and of this constitu- III, reads follows: Article as governor, presented tion, to the shall be joint passed by resolutions “All bills and effect, same take before the shall presented con- houses shall be to and both proceeded same in the shall be governor, fif- sidered and within bill; pro- as in case of a manner presentation days he teen after shall re- vided, origin have the that no resolution shall turn them to the house of their any approval repeal, extend, with his or accom- endorsed or amend effect to panied by objections. If be his the bill law.” The Charter of St. Louis ferred approval to the for their is before us in this rejection case and we observe provided by the referendum provides that Section 16 of III provisions Article of the Constitution and statutes passed that all ordinances the Council of re- Secretary Missouri. of State Super shall be submitted to the accept petition proceeding to fused and a visor, who is the executive officer compel mandamus was filed him to county. provides right veto accept filing. denying the writ and for a method passing mandamus, ordinances Frank, Judge speaking Supervisor. over the veto of the banc, pointed Leg- this court en out that the obvious, seem under the of Hol activity doctrine islature in in connection with this lingsworth, Lesueur, Kirby Atterbury, proposed ratification of a amendment to аpplication that this section legis has acting federal Constitution was not lation making but would not to the discharge of its duties. process of amending said, the Charter. This The court then c. 898: S.W.2d 1. though true even uses the section Legis- “It therefore follows that when the language “all appears ordinances.” It pro- lature enacted House Bill the County Supervisor did in affix vides assembling the method for a con- signature his pro to the two ordinances vention, not, strictly speaking, per- it was posing the charter but amendments this forming legislative body functions unnecessary. approved If he had not state, for the represent- but was as a (whether them not him submitted to at peoplе, ative of pursuant authority vetoed) all or he this would not have af delegated to it the federal Constitution fected validity provide obtaining a method for amendments. Such as Section assembling represent conventions to 16 apply only legislative process. people in ratifying rejecting proposed The earlier eompel cases discussed amendments to the federal Constitution. conclusion. We could decide other therefore, Such enactment not law- was, wise overruling without those cases. making state, for the reason and for that the referendum.
We also observe that Section 17 specifies III Article of the Charter “Withоut doubt the enactment of House the effective date for all ordinances other Bill assembling for the than (unless measures a notice convention, necessary pre- was but a peti intention to referendum circulate liminary step preparatory to the final action *7 tions is prescribed, filed in the manner of the through state the convention. in which event the date of the effective If the final action of the convention is postponed period ordinances is for a of legislative act, not a logically it must permit time to filing circulation of and preliminary step preparatory follow that a petitions). provision referendum This rеla to such legislative final action is a not suspension tive to for referendum likewise It adage act. is a familiar that the whole applicable is not making to the constitution is not parts different from the of which process. necessary This is result case, composed. is any it Under view the Sevier, holding our ex State Tate v. rel. legis- House Bill 514 is not an act of 333 Mo. 62 S.W.2d 87 A.L.R. assembly lative meaning within the Assembly passed 1315. The General had provisions referendum of the state Con- bill calling purpose election stitution, and for that reason is not sub- electing delegates a state convention ject to the referendum.” proposed to vote ratification of amеndment to the Constitution the United petition A By
States. was filed with the Secre reasoning, the same the action tary asking that bill State said be re- voting
168 amendments legislative act, would not be a with constitutional legis that and consequently the preliminary step of presented lative acts be to the executive proposing such constitutional amendments officer for his approval veto. Like and providing for wise, a vote thereon dealing the section of the charter with people would legislative not be a act and emergency legislation germane is not not be This referendum. amending process. the constitution is consistent with the decisions in the аction of legislative body simply is Lesueur, Kirby Atterbury cases. step the initial therein. No new law deal
ing emergency with some after exists legislative body the amend has enacted 18 of Article III of the proposal. ment This Charter, conclusion is the section respond relied on any prin enunciation of ents, doctrine or new. deals with ordinances. ciple. merely applies what this court Does it making constitution has long period stated over a of our state’s merely legislation? very reason history Lesueur, Kirby, Atterbury in the for emergency legislation is a manifest cases, principle Sevier as well as the necessity for legislative change. immediate Hollingsworth Virginiа. v. State This is the legislation basis for making effective at once rather than after delay
usual passage between and effective Even if hold we assume and (this date also preventing the involves Section 18 is to the charter greater delay involved referendum of amending process, still conclude and hold we legislative proposals). As in 82 stated adopted the two ordinances were 401c, 965, “Broadly page Statutes § C.J.S. should have been to a vote submitted speaking, an emergency justifying leg people. emer The ordinances must be making islature in a statute effective on gency terms ordinances to fall within the passage its consists in an unforeseen com has held re Section 18. This court calling bination of im circumstances peatedly of whether preserve peace, mediate public action to act fact an health, safety, support or to the state question, judicial legis measure is a existing or its institutions.” cases involved both lative one. Such ex Asot statutes and ordinances. State rel. pro The two charter amendments sky Regan, al. v. 317 Mo. et posed by ordinance dealt making 773; ex S.W. 55 A.L.R. State inf. office of Highway Engineer ap Gen., Taylor, Atty. ex rel. Kansas pointive elective, rather extending than 374, 228 City, v. North Kansas 360 Mo. system the merit employees. to certain 762; Inter-City Fire Protection S.W.2d Thesе could amendments not become ef Gambrell, District of Jackson approved by fective unless and until 193; State ex S.W.2d every vote of the This is true of Mo., Holman, rel. Charleston proposed by charter amendment ordinance. immediately. It cannot become effective by re- simply preliminary step in the There was no evidence offered *8 process spondents these ordinances charter amendment. It initiates to show that two proposal emergency the were matters. The ordinances which electorate will no state- language decide. is for this reason this themselves contained that emer- consistently court has ment of an emergency held that such acts even that legislative body comply There is gency the need not measure was intended. either requirements nothing subject in matter of with constitutional title for the any legislation, comply suggests emer- need not with consti ordinance which even employees requirements particular to gency. tutional as num One transfers some to comply changes an system. ber of and need not even the merit The other readings,
169 County, Louis Election Commissioners of St. appointive office from an elective to an anything Missouri, to submit the amendments imagine status. is hard to proposed by 3346 to Ordinances 3345 and emergency Respondents less in nature. Missоuri, County, the voters of St. Louis rely solely provisions of 18 on the Section at to be held on Novem- general Ex- the election emergency to these ordinances. make pressed ber is: 1966. syllogism, position as a their submitting something to Every ordinance people emergency a vote the is or- an STORCKMAN, J., HYDE and C. and 18;
dinance under Section Ordinances 3345 EAGER, JJ., concur. and to 3346 submit matters a vote
people; therefore Ordinances 3345 3346 and DONNELLY, dissenting in J., dissents are emergency in fact ordinances. Such opinion filed. a conclusion is at variance with the doc- trine that the determination of whether a legislative is in emergency act in fact HENLEY, JJ., dissent HOLMAN and judicial.
nature is We must cоnclude that dissenting opinion and in of DON- concur charter amending two ordinances were NELLY, J. not in fact emergency being measures.5 Not such, required only four votes for DONNELLY, Judge (dissenting).
passage
reaching
under
In
Section 13.
Asotsky
decision we have considered the
County
Louis
The Charter of St.
re-
cases,
and
City
supra,
North
cited
Kansas
quires
to
that an amendment
the Charter
and
respondents. Asotsky
relied on
approved by
must
be
Section
cigarette
involved
wheth-
tax measure and
18 of Article
Charter states
III
er it
The
referendum.
unequivocally
that an ordinance
North Kansas
case did involve an
proposal
any
submission
calling
an election in connection рeople
an
ordinance and
that
with a
property
annexation
require
such
af-
an ordinance shall
both Kansas
Kansas
and North
firmative vote of not less than five members
City sought
recognize
to annex.
cases
Both
County
ambiguity.
Council. I find no
whether a
act is
fact
principal opinion
to make
undertakes
emergency is
judicial question.
We will
a determination
toas whether Ordinances
compare
distinguish.
undertake to
“emergency”
3345 and 3346
fact
hold simply,
nothing
We
in either
I
measures.
I
feel
would not do this.
of St. Louis
determined
decision leads
us
the conclusion that
question
they adopted
when
either
3346
Ordinance
part
of Article III
of their Charter.
emergenсy in nature.
If we had a
us
case before
where
judgment
sought
Council had
reversed
remanded
enact
(6)
the trial court is
dismiss ordinance under
directed to
Subsection
plaintiffs’ petition
(not
people)
counterclaim
the Council
would
and the
O’Hara,
and cross
have declared the
and would
claim
defendants
engaged
a legislative
Osborn and Martin.
further
act.
It is directed
situation,
case,
mandatory injunction, prayed
Asotsky
issue its
cited in
principal
rule,
directing
opinion,
appellants,
counterclaim of
plaintiffs,
judicial
Board of
would be for
determina-
members
pressing
752;
mat-
ex rel.
For eases
which more
237 S.W.
State
Westhues
327;
emergencies,
Sullivan,
were
bе
ters
held
S.W.
Highway
Hol-
ex
State ex rel.
see State
rel. State
Commis-
Charleston v.
742,19
man, Mo.,
Thompson,
sion
323 Mo.
I dissent. er a statute or in an ordinance is fact an emergency measure within the law.” Sub- Rehearing On Motion sequently, opinion say: went on to “This proposal requiring peo- a submission PER CURIAM. ple approval rejection for their in an emergency election was an Re- measure. respond- rehearing In their motion City lator’s right Council had the lawful urge judicial power ents that the tо deter- emergency so denominate an meas- emergency mine whether an in fact exists ure and we hold that in it was such.” fact is limited to a review of declarations (Emphasis Thus, supplied.) the court noted emergency by legislative body. It has in City City the North Kansas case that the application, say respondents, no to declara- Council in its to be ordinance declared it charter, people in tions their ordinance, an emergency and the court then on the such determinations are conclusive ordinance, held that the passed by City any courts and not review. The Council, in emergency was fact an meas- Attorney Taylor, cases of еx inf. Gen- State ure. The court thereby ju- exercised the eral, City ex rel. North Kansas Kansas dicial function of making such a determina- City, Mo., ex rel. State appears tion. assign- thus that the court Asotsky Regan, 298 S.W. 317 Mo. ed two bases for upholding its decision being in 55 A.L.R. are cited emergency ordinance as an measure. support proposition. of this cannot be said that the decision is based solely proposition on the that the charter later is the North of these two cases provision conclusively made ordinance City say Kansas we herein case. What emergency measure, because, an in that principle in to a discussion event, the gone court would not have ahead case, Asotsky and hence will discuss we judicially determined that it an was only City Kansas case in this North emergency measure in fact. per curiam. O.ne decided the North Kan- Missouri is in accord with the City adopt- sas case was that an ordinance prevalent view declara ed was Council of Kansas tion stating an emergency act to be an
an emergency
Kansas
was
measure.
weight,
measure is entitled to great
“but
city
constitutional charter
and its
conclusive,
is not
pos
because
courts
“any
provision
contained a
ordinance
authority
sess the final
to determine wheth
* * * providing for
submission of
emergency
er an
Am.
fact exists.” 16
any proposal
people”
an emer-
Jur.2d,
Law,
171, p.
Constitutional
§
gency
ordinance.
the title
the ordi-
Am.Jur., Municipal Corpora
See also 37
adopted,
nance which
as well as in
tions,
765;
p.
Annotations: Emer
§
body thereof, it was declared that the ordi- gency
Ordinance,
Clause
35 A.L.R.2d
nance was an
measure.
586, 55
right
A.L.R. 779. Such
con
opinion
court’s
referred to the
that the
specifically
any
ferred
pro
constitutional
city
provision
charter did contain the
above vision but
judicial
is an inherent
function
referred to and that it was “not an unlaw-
applicable alike to enactments of the state
ful or
language
unreasonable one.” This
legislaturе and municipal
bodies.
say
provision
seems to
this charter
proposal
respondents
an
submitting
made
to Whether
correct
their
in and
contention
emergency measure
that the
charter declaration
However,
opinion,
the same
itself.
conclusive
courts
*10
subject
judicial review
involves a
status
was
(1)
consideration of
themselves
arbitrary
county
was held to be
city
of a
or
a charter which
and
annexation
and of
adopts,
unreasonable, and therefore invalid.
it
and
and
the nature
the author-
(2)
people in
form
ity
Thus,
action
judicially
of the court
determine
not
their charter was
an
an amendment to
whether
in fact exists.
im-
not
conclusive
courts and was
on the
from an examination as to reason-
mune
county
city,
A
a
or
or
charter
v.
City of Hannibal
ableness. See also
otherwise,
is,
imperium imperio,
that
Winchester, Mo.,
statute of the legislature can be de invalid
clared acts the same reasons legislature. City, Kansas Missouri Co., I.
v. Case Threshing Machine J. additiоn, S.W.2d 202. course, the charter conform must Missouri, Respondent, general laws of STATE of the state when the provisions they thereof conform do not so are invalid. The contention Virgil CAFFEY, Appellant. Jack county of a city charter inviolate No. 51596. people because were made them body selves rather than is not Supreme Missouri, Court example sound. An will In Mc illustrate. Division No. 1. Corp. City Berkeley, Donnell Aircraft June 1966. Mo., held in this court an valid amendment the charter of the Rebearing Motion for or to Transfer to Court Berkeley whereby it had annexed July 11, En Banc Denied territory. city additional had followed its charter in making the annexation.
contention was made that this annexation
in the form of amendment was charter
an action people themselves authority
under Missouri Constitu adopt
tion amended judicial
such action was re toas reasonableness. court ex This
view
pressly held that this action