Schulte v. Fitch
| Decision Date | 27 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,578 |
| Parties | WILLIAM F. SCHULTE AND OTHERS v. C. P. FITCH AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Two actions begun in the district court for Meeker county where an order was granted by Baker, J., requiring defendants to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue, and then transferred to Ramsey county where an order was made by Hanft, J., requiring plaintiffs to show cause why the application of Minnesota Co-operative Creameries Association Inc., to intervene in the cases, should not be granted. The orders to show cause were heard by John B. Sanborn, J., who discharged them and the application of the Creameries Association. From the order discharging the order to show cause and temporary restraining order issued by Judge Baker plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
Statutes invalid only when clearly unconstitutional.
1. Statutes are presumed to be valid and will be declared invalid only when they clearly transgress some inhibition of the Constitution.
Appropriation act of 1923 for testing cattle for tuberculosis not unconstitutional.
2. Chapter 269, L. 1923, adopting the "area plan" for suppressing tuberculosis among cattle, does not violate the constitutional provision forbidding taxation for private purposes; nor the provision requiring taxation to be uniform on the same class of subjects; nor the provision forbidding the state to engage in internal improvements; nor the provision forbidding special legislation; nor the provisions securing equal protection of the laws.
Suppression of tuberculosis among domestic animals a public purpose.
3. Statutes to promote and protect the public health by suppressing tuberculosis among domestic animals are for a public purpose.
Such laws liberally construed.
4. Laws for promoting and protecting the public health are liberally construed to accomplish the intended purpose.
Area plan adopted.
5. By this statute the state adopted the "area plan" for controlling and suppressing tuberculosis among cattle, designated counties as such areas, and made them one of its agencies for carrying the plan into effect.
Act does not regulate affairs of counties.
6. The statute deals with a matter of state concern. It does not regulate the affairs of counties as such, and does not offend the provision that laws regulating such affairs "shall be uniform in their operation throughout the state."
Act does not violate equality rules.
7. It is general in form and in operation, and does not violate the equality rules.
Legislative discretion not exceeded.
8. The legislature was within its discretion in providing that the "area plan" should be put into operation in a county only when the board of county commissioners, on petition of a majority of the cattle owners, made the required appropriation to aid defraying the necessary expense.
Violation of quarantine regulations.
9. The statute is supplemental to prior laws, and as the quarantine regulations adopted are authorized by prior laws, violations of them are within the penal provisions of such laws.
* Headnote 1. See Constitutional Law, 12 C.J. p. 791, § 221; p. 795, § 222.
Headnote 2. See Constitutional Law, 12 C.J. p. 1150, § 880 (1926 (1926 Anno); States, 36 Cyc. p. 886; Statutes, 36 Cyc. p. 1008; Taxation, 37 Cyc. pp. 722, 746.
Headnote 3. See Statutes, 36 Cyc. p. 987.
Headnote 4. See Health, 29 C.J. p. 243, § 6.
Headnote 5. See Statutes, 36 Cyc. p. 1002.
Headnote 6. See Statutes, 36 Cyc. p. 993.
Headnote 7. See Statutes, 36 Cyc. p. 988.
Headnote 8. See Constitutional Law, 12 C.J. p. 864, § 365.
Headnote 9. See Animals, 3 C.J. p. 60, § 182.
Manahan, Sullivan & Hoogesteger, for appellants.
Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, Victor E. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, and Raymond H. Dart, County Attorney, for respondent.
Mitchell, Doherty, Rumble, Bunn & Butler, on behalf of the Creameries Association, filed a brief as amici curiae.
Chapter 269, p. 350, L. 1923, provides, in section 1:
"The boards of county commissioners of the several counties of this state are hereby authorized upon petition of a majority of the persons owning cattle in the county * * * to appropriate * * * a sum of money not exceeding twenty-five cents per head of cattle for each tuberculin test that may be administered, until the percentage of tuberculous cattle within the county is reduced to meet the requirements of a 'modified accredited area' as defined and approved by the United States Department of Agriculture and the State Live Stock Sanitary Board of Minnesota, for the purpose of aiding in the testing of cattle in the county for tuberculosis and of carrying out sanitary and quarantine regulations."
Other sections of the act provide that the state live stock sanitary board shall enter into an agreement with any county board, making such appropriation, to test all cattle in the county for tuberculosis, provided funds are available for the payment of indemnities as provided by law, and provided also that qualified veterinarians are available to make the tests; that for the purpose of receiving Federal aid the Federal bureau of animal industry may be a party to such agreement; that the owners of cattle within such county shall submit them for tests and physical examinations and shall cause all infected animals to be slaughtered; and that the state live stock sanitary board shall make and enforce all necessary quarantine rules and regulations within the area covered by the agreement.
In May, 1923, the board of county commissioners of Meeker county, under and pursuant to this statute, entered into an agreement with the state live stock sanitary board and the Federal bureau of animal industry by which the state board, with the assistance of the Federal bureau, was to test all cattle in the county for tuberculosis, to cause all infected cattle to be slaughtered, and to put into effect and enforce the rules and regulations necessary to establish the county as a "modified accredited tuberculosis-free area," as defined by the Federal department of agriculture.
The live stock sanitary board proceeded to make the tests as provided in the regulations. The first test disclosed 553 infected herds. The board proceeded to carry out the provision for eradicating the disease, and a later test showed that the number of infected herds had been reduced from 553 to 60. To accomplish the purpose more effectively the board adopted additional quarantine regulations. Edward Branson and five other cattle owners, engaged in the dairy business in the county, then brought an action to enjoin the county commissioners, the live stock sanitary board, and the board of health from carrying out or enforcing the provisions of the agreement on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional, and that the agreement entered into and the regulations adopted by the board are unauthorized and void. William F. Schutte and seven other taxpayers of the county brought a similar action on the same grounds. By consent the two actions were consolidated. The plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out the provisions of the agreement or enforcing the quarantine regulations during the pendency of the action. The application was denied and the plaintiffs appealed.
The two assignments of error challenge the constitutionality of chapter 269, p. 350, L. 1923; and the authority of the state live stock sanitary board to institute criminal prosecutions against cattle owners who refuse to permit their cattle to be tested.
In support of their contention that the statute infringes the provisions of the Constitution, plaintiffs assert that it imposes taxation for a private purpose; that it makes the state a party to a work of internal improvement; that it provides for a tax not uniform on the same class of subjects; that it denies equal protection of the laws, and that it is special or class legislation.
That tuberculosis is a dangerous, contagious or infectious disease which attacks both human beings and domestic animals; that it is prevalent throughout the state among both human beings and domestic animals; and that it is communicated to human beings, especially to children, by milk and other food products from infected animals, stand undisputed. The object of the statute is to promote and preserve the public health by providing a means for the control and suppression of this disease among cattle. That it is for a public purpose is beyond question.
As the statute is clearly a measure for the protection of the public against disease, it is not within the constitutional inhibition against taxation for private purposes, nor within the inhibition against the state engaging in work of internal...
To continue reading
Request your trial