State ex rel. Brewster v. Ross

Citations

• 101 Kan. 377
• 166 P. 505
• 1917 Kan. LEXIS 99

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Moving-picture Films — Fees Collected for Examination — Not Excessive. The disproportion between the amount of fees collected under a statute purporting to be an inspection measure and the expenses incurred in its execution will justify a court in holding it to be invalid only when one of two conditions is met: either the discrepancy must be so great that the court is forced to the conclusion that the legislature in the first instance acted in bad faith, and intended to provide a revenue under the pretext of requiring an inspection,- or else the legislature must have neglected an opportunity to revise the charges exacted, after experience had shown those previously imposed to be excessive.</p> <p>2. Same — Statute Not a Revenue Measure. The fact that in the first two years' of its enforcement the statute of 1913 providing for the censorship of moving pictures yielded an income of practically four times the cost of its administration is not enough to compel the conclusion that it was. intended by the legislature as a revenue measure.</p> <p>3. Same — Additional Clerks to Assist in Inspecting Films. The provision of the statute referred to authorizing the appointment of additional clerks in the office of the state superintendent of public instruction is held to imply that they were to assist in inspecting and passing upon films, although by the terms of the act that duty was laid upon the superintendent.</p>