Chicago W.&V. Coal Co. v. People

• Decision Date: 16 October 1899
• Citation: 54 N.E. 961,181 Ill. 270
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO, W. & V. COAL CO. v. PEOPLE.

181 Ill. 270

54 N.E. 961

CHICAGO, W. & V. COAL CO.

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 16, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Sangamon county; Owen P. Thompson, Judge.

Action by the people against the Chicago, Wilmington & Vermilion Coal Company to recover inspection fees for inspection of defendant's mines. From a judgment in plaintiffs' favor, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Charles W. Thomas and George S. House, for appellant.

E. C. Akin, C. A. Hill, and D. B. Monroe, for the People.

The plaintiffs, the people of the state of Illinois, brought suit against the defendant coal company to recover on account of inspection fees of the state mine inspector for certain mines theretofore inspected. The suit is brought to recover for the fees provided for under an act entitled ‘An act providing for the health and safety of persons employed in coal mines,’ approved May 28, 1879, and amendments thereto. The case was tried under a stipulation as to the facts. It appears that the appellant owns six coal mines in this state, in each of which more than six men are employed. One of these mines is in the Second mining district and five are in the First district. Between the 1st day of November, 1895, and the 1st day of July, 1897, in the First district, the mines were inspected twenty-two times, for which the aggregate sum of $216 was charged, and between the 1st day of July, 1897, and the 27th day of April, 1898, seven inspections were made, for which $70 was charged. The mine in the Second district, between the 1st day of November, 1895, and the 27th day of April, 1898, was inspected four times, for which $40 was charged. The aggregate of the charges for the inspections thus made was $326. The defendant, by the stipulation, admitted the amount was due if the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and submitted two propositions of law to be held, to the effect there could be no recovery under either count of the declaration, which were refused, and exception taken. A motion in arrest of judgment was entered, which was denied, and a finding and judgment had in favor of the plaintiffs for $326, to which the defendant excepted. The question is presented whether the act of July 1, 1895, and the amendment thereto in force July, 1897, providing for the payment into the state treasury by owners or operators of coal mines of this state of the charges made by state mine inspectors for inspecting the mines, are valid enactments.

PHILLIPS, J. (after stating the facts).

Section 29 of article 4 of the constitution is as follows: ‘It shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass such laws as may be necessary for the protection of operative miners, by providing for ventilation when the same may be required, and the construction of escapement shafts, or such other appliances as may secure safety in all coal mines, and to provide for the enforcement of said laws by such penalties and punishments as may be deemed proper.’ This provision requires the legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary, etc., and leaves to that body the determination of the policy of the state as to what legislation is necessary to conform to its requirements. The legislature has seen proper, in the act entitled ‘An act providing for the health and safety of persons employed in coal mines,’ approved May 28, 1879, and in force July 1, 1879, and by the amendments thereto, to require certain duties to be done and performed by the owner, operator, or manager of a coal mine. Some of these duties are as follows: Section 1 provides that the owner shall make, or cause to be made, an accurate map, to be furnished to the state inspector of mines of the district. Section 2 provides the inspector may make a map at the expense of the owner, should he neglect or refuse so to do. Section 3 is as to the manner of construction of escapement shafts, etc. Section 4 is as to the ventilation of mines. Section 5 requires that bore holes shall be kept 20 feet in advance of each working place, under certain circumstances. Section 6 is as to hoistways, and who may be employed, ect. Section 7 is as to operating the hoistways. Section 8 is as to the fencing the shaft. Section 11 provides for the division of the state into districts, for the appointment of inspectors, and prescribes their duties and fixes their salaries. This latter section was amended in 1895. Prior to that time the inspector was paid wholly by the state, but after the amendment of 1895, and by the amendment of 1897, it was provided that fees might be charged, which were required to be paid by the mine owner. It is these two amendatory statutes which the appellant contends are unconstitutional, as placing a burden that is unreasonable and unjust onto the mine owner.

The object and purpose of the statute are the protection of miners working in coal mines. While the act is an effort on the part of the general assembly to strictly comply with section 29 of article 4 of the constitution, by providing for the ventilation of mines, the construction of escapement shafts, and such other appliances as shall secure safety in all coal mines, the general assembly has seen proper to include a provision for the preparation of maps and the filing of the same with the chief mine inspector of the district, and that on neglect or default of the owner to make such map the inspector may make the same at his expense, and this is one of the requirements of the statute which has been held constitutional by this court. In Daniels v. Hilgard, 77 Ill. 640, it was held (page 643): ‘Our legislature, in an act having for its avowed object the providing for the health and safety of persons employed in coal mines, has thought it proper to incorporate this provision for the making of a map. The lawmaking powers elsewhere, as it is seen in their laws for the same object, have adopted this same provision. This would seem to indicate as the legislative understanding that the provision is one in aid of the accomplishment of the purpose of such acts, the protection of persons engaged in such mines,-a proper part of the system adopted to that end. The question is properly one of legislative determination. A court should not lightly interfere in such case. The legislature must have manifestly transcended its province for it to do so. We are of opinion that it is not for a court to say that the provision here which is called in question is anything more than a fair and reasonable police regulation with reference to the subject-matter of the act, which the legislature, in its discretion, has seen proper to adopt, and that it should not be set aside as unconstitutional.’

To a much greater extent the provisions of section 11, which...