State v. Hannon

1. Case, Followed. The metropolitan-police law held valid, following The State, ex rel., v. Hunter, ante, p. 578. 2. Mandamus, Not to Collect Salaries of Police Officers. Mandamus will not lie to compel the mayor and council of a city subject to the operation of the metropolitan-police law to appropriate money and pay ■ the salaries and claims of the officers and servants appointed and employed by the police commissioners of such city. Such salaries and claims are mere debts against the city, the collection of which may be enforced in an ordinary action.

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. This is an original proceeding in mandamus, brought by the attorney general, in the name of the state, to compel the mayor and council of the city of Kansas City, Kansas, to appropriate the necessary amount and to pay the persons employed by the police commissioners of that city as policemen, police officers, and servants of the police department, for their services rendered to the city in the police government thereof. An alternative writ was allowed, which sets forth that Kansas City, Kansas, is a city of the first class; that on or about the 6th day of April, 1887, the executive council of the state of Kansas appointed W. A. Simpson, R. W. Hilliker and G. W. Bishop, police commissioners of that city; that they immediately qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties, and appointed a marshal and policemen for the purpose of administering the police affairs of the city; that on or about the 6th day of September, 1887, the police commissioners certified to the mayor and council the names of the persons appointed and employed, the salary and remuneration each was to receive for his services, and the amount due to each person for his services as policeman, police officer, or servant of the police department for the month of August, 1887; that said several sums aggregated $1,128; that on or about the 4th day of October, 1887, the said police commissioners made, executed and delivered to the mayor and council a statement showing the names of the persons employed, the compensation each was to receive, and the amount due and unpaid to each person for the month of September, 1887, and that the several sums aggregated $1,160; that on or about the 6th day of November, 1887, the police commissioners made and delivered to the mayor and council a like statement for the month of October, 1887, and the amount stated to be due for services was $1,180; that on or about December 6th, 1887, the police commissiouers delivered another statement^ duly certified to, showing the amount due for services in the police department for the month of November, 1887, to be $1,265.67. It is then alleged that the mayor and council have neglected and refused, and still do, to pass an ordinance appropriating the amount necessary to pay the persons employed by the police commissioners for- services rendered to the city in the police government thereof. It is also stated that there was in the city treasury at the time of the meeting in September, 1887, and in the general fund thereof, the sum of $4,287.67; that at the time of the meeting in October, 1887, there was in the city treasury the sum of $2,878.51; that at the time of the meeting in December, 1887, there was in the general fund of the city treasury the sum of $7,891.92; but that notwithstanding the fact that there was sufficient money in the treasury with which to pay the police officers, policemen, and servants of the police department, the mayor and council had refused, and still neglect and refuse, to make any appropriation for their payment. It is also stated that the police force has been efficient, and by its effort and efficiency has placed in the city treasury the sum of $8,257.70; that of the persons arrested by the police force and convicted of offenses charged against them and confined in the city prison there has been collected in the form of work upon the streets of the city the sum of $1,895.60; that the revenue brought to the city by the efficiency of the police force is greater than the expenses necessary in maintaining the same. The defendants demurred to the alternative writ of mandamus, upon the following grounds: “1. The said writ does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against these defendants. “2. The state of Kansas is not the real party in interest, and the attorney general has no power or authority to prosecute this action against the defendants. “3. The statute under which said police commissioners and policemen mentioned in said alternative writ pretended to act as such is unconstitutional and void.” This demurrer was sustained, at the session of the court in February, 1888.