State v. Hyman
| Decision Date | 19 February 1904 |
| Citation | 57 A. 6,98 Md. 596 |
| Parties | STATE v. HYMAN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City: Henry Stockbridge Judge.
Louis Hyman was prosecuted for unlawfully conducting a sweat shop and from a judgment quashing the indictment and discharging the defendant the state appeals. Reversed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, and JONES, JJ.
Atty Gen. Bryan and Jacob M. Moses, for the State.
Foutz & Norris and Myer Rosenbush, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the state of Maryland from the criminal court of Baltimore City. It is a case wherein Louis Hyman was indicted for a violation of Acts 1902, p. 121, c. 101. The title of that act is in these words: "An act to add four additional sections to article 27 of the Code of Public General Laws, title 'Crimes and Punishments,' subtitle, 'Health--Workshops and Factories, Sweating System,' as the same was amended by chapter 302, Acts of 1894, and chapter 467, Acts of 1896; such four additional sections to be known respectively as sections 149ee, 149ff, 149gg, and 149hh, and to come in immediately after section 149d of the article." The indictment contains five counts. The first count charges that the appellee, Hyman, unlawfully did use and cause to be used a certain room and apartment in a certain tenement and dwelling house by other than the immediate members of the family then living therein for the manufacture of coats, vests, trousers, etc., contrary to the provisions of the above-mentioned act of assembly. The second count charges that the appellee, Hyman, did unlawfully use a certain room and apartment in a certain tenement and dwelling house for the manufacture of coats, vests, trousers, etc., he, the said Hyman, not being then and there an immediate member of the family then living in said room and apartment contrary to the form of the aforesaid act of assembly, etc. The third count alleges that the appellee, Hyman, being then and there a part of the family, unlawfully did use a certain room and apartment in a certain tenement and dwelling house for the manufacture of coats, vests, trousers, etc., not having first obtained a permit from the chief of the bureau of industrial statistics stating the number of persons allowed to be employed therein, contrary to the said statute. The fourth count charges that the appellee, Hyman, in a certain room and apartment in a certain rear building in the rear of a tenement and dwelling house unlawfully did work at and hire and employ divers persons to work at making coats, vests, trousers, etc., without first obtaining a written permit from the chief of the bureau of industrial statistics stating the maximum number of persons allowed to be employed therein, contrary to the provisions of the statute, etc. And the fifth count charges that the appellee, Hyman, employing divers persons in a certain tenement and dwelling house to make and wholly and partially finish coats, vests, trousers, etc., failed to keep a register of the names and addresses of all persons to whom such work was given to be made, contrary to the form of the act of assembly, etc. To this indictment, and to each count thereof, the appellee interposed a demurrer and upon hearing the demurrer, was sustained, the indictment was on motion quashed, and the traverser was discharged. Thereupon the state took this appeal.
The question which is thus presented is one not only of importance, but of considerable interest, and, when reduced to its final analysis, it is whether the act under which the indictment was framed is a constitutional exercise of the legislative power of the General Assembly. To determine that question it will be necessary to briefly summarize the provisions of that statute. It will be observed at the outset that the act is ostensibly one intended for the preservation and the protection of the public health and safety. It is incorporated in the Code under the subtitle "Health," and its provisions were designed to promote the public health and welfare. By section 149ee (section 240), it is, in substance, provided: That no room or apartment in any tenement or dwelling house shall be used except by the immediate members of the family living therein, which shall be limited to husband and wife, their children, or the children of either, for the manufacture of coats, vests, trousers, etc. That no room or apartment in any tenement or dwelling house shall be so used by any family or part of a family until a permit shall first have been obtained from the chief of the bureau of industrial statistics stating the maximum number of persons allowed to be employed therein. Such permit shall not be granted until an inspection of the premises has been made by the inspector or his assistant named by the chief of the bureau of industrial statistics, and such permit may be revoked by the said chief of the bureau of industrial statistics at any time the health of the community or those employed or living therein may require it. That no person, firm, or corporation shall work or hire or employ any person to work in a room or apartment in any building, rear building, or building in the rear of a tenement or dwelling house at making in whole or in part any of the articles of wearing apparel mentioned above, without first obtaining a written permit from the chief of the bureau of industrial statistics stating a maximum number of persons allowed to be employed therein. That the said permit shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the room, or one of the rooms, to which itrelates. That every person, firm, or corporation contracting for the manufacture of any of the articles mentioned above, or giving out the incomplete materials from which they or any of them are to be made, or to be wholly or partially finished, or employing persons in any tenement or dwelling house or other building to make wholly or partially finish the articles above mentioned, shall keep a written register of the names and addresses of all persons to whom such work is given to be made, or with whom they may have contracted to do the same. By section 149ff (section 241) it is provided that the chief of the bureau of industrial statistics or his assistant or any inspector shall have authority to enter any room, factory, or place where any goods are manufactured into wearing apparel for the purpose of inspection, and that the person, firm, or corporation owning or controlling or managing such places shall furnish access to, or information in regard to, such places to the said chief of the bureau of industrial statistics or his deputies at any and all reasonable times while work is being carried on. By section 149gg (section 242) it is provided that the chief of the bureau of industrial statistics shall appoint two deputies and assistants, whose duties it shall be to make such inspection of the tenements and dwelling houses, factories, workshops, mills, and such other places as he may designate. By section 149hh (section 243) it is declared that every person, firm, or corporation who shall in any manner violate the provisions of the preceding sections, and who shall refuse to give such information and access to the chief of the bureau of industrial statistics or his deputies, or who shall fail to secure such permit as provided, shall, upon conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction, be fined or imprisoned, or both, as in said section prescribed.
It is insisted by the appellee, and we presume that it was held by the court below, that these provisions of the statute were unconstitutional, and therefore void, because they were arbitrary and unreasonable. It is obvious that the statute was passed in furtherance of the protection of the health of the community. Its enactment was an exercise by the General Assembly of the police power of the state. What is and what is not within the limits of the police power has been a source of prolific discussion both in the federal and in the state courts. One of the legitimate and most important functions of civil government is acknowledged to be that of providing for the welfare of the people by making and enforcing laws to preserve and promote the public health, the public morals, and the public safety. Civil society cannot exist without such laws, and they are therefore justified by necessity and sanctioned by the right of self-preservation. The power to enact and enforce them is lodged by the people with the government of the state, qualified only by such conditions as to the manner of its exercise as are necessary to secure the individual citizen from unjust and arbitrary interference. With respect to its internal police, the authority of each of the states is supreme and exclusive. Whilst by the federal Constitution the separate and independent states surrendered or transferred to the general government which they established such powers as were deemed to be necessary to enable it to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare of the people of the United States, the states themselves reserved complete and sovereign control over their own internal affairs. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has stated as an "impregnable position" that the states of the Union have the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within their respective territorial limits as any foreign nation has, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the federal Constitution; and that by virtue of this it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty, of the state to advance the safety happiness, and prosperity of its people, to provide for their general welfare by any and every act of legislation which may be deemed to be conducive to...
To continue reading
Request your trial