Arkansas-Missouri Power Corp. v. City of Kennett

• Citation: 156 S.W.2d 913,348 Mo. 1108
• Decision Date: 25 September 1941
• Docket Number: 37562
• Parties: Arkansas-Missouri Power Corporation, a Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. City of Kennett et al., Defendants-Respondents
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

156 S.W.2d 913

348 Mo. 1108

Arkansas-Missouri Power Corporation, a Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. City of Kennett et al., Defendants-Respondents

No. 37562

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 25, 1941

Rehearing Denied December 16, 1941.

Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court; Hon. William E. Barton Special Judge.

Affirmed.

Hal H. McHaney, Henry C. Walker, Langdon R. Jones and Patterson, Chastain & Smith for appellants.

(1) The City of Kennett was without power to enact and adopt a minimum wage scale and such minimum wage scale adopted by the city renders the proceedings and contracts void. Art. 4 Chap. 38, R. S. 1929, Ann. Stat., pp. 5585-5680; Art. 10, Chap. 38, R. S. 1929, Ann. Stat., pp. 5817-5855; Art. IV, Sec. 48, Mo. Const.; State v. Anderson, 101 S.W.2d 534; Hillig v. St. Louis, 337 Mo. 291, 85 S.W.2d 91; Taylor v. Dimmitt, 336 Mo. 330, 78 S.W.2d 841; State ex rel. Blue Springs v. McWilliams, 335 Mo. 816, 74 S.W.2d l. c. 364; State v. Mo. Tie & Timber Co., 181 Mo. 536, 80 S.W. 933; State v. Butler, 178 Mo. l. c. 312, 77 S.W. 560; St. Louis v. Bell Tele. Co., 96 Mo. l.c. 628, 10 S.W. 197, 2 L. R. A. 78; Sec. 6804, R. S. 1929, 8 Mo. Stat. Ann. 5618; Ark.-Mo. Power Co. v. Kennett, 78 F.2d 911; Layne-Western Co. v. Buchanan County, 85 F.2d 343; Bohn v. Salt Lake City, 8 P.2d 591, 81 A. L. R. 215; Harlan v. Employees' Assn. of Maryland, 159 A. 267, 81 A. L. R. 342; City of Atlanta v. Stein, 111 Ga. 789, 51 L. R. A. 335; Street v. Varney Electrical Supply Co., 160 Ind. 338, 61 L. R. A. l. c. 161; Frame v. Felix, 167 Pa. 47, 27 L. R. A. l. c. 802, Opinion affirmed, 27 L. R. A. l. c. 807. (2) The minimum wage scale in the case at bar is void for the further reason that it is not general in its application but only purports to apply to the construction of a municipal light plant and distribution system, and is, therefore, class legislation in violation of Article IV, Secs. 46, 47 and 48 of the Missouri Constitution. Art. IV, Sec. 53, Pars. 24, 32, Mo. Const.; Art. IV, Secs. 46, 47 and 48, Mo. Const.; Ex parte Beckenstein, 104 S.W.2d 404; Cape Girardeau v. Groves Motor Co., 142 S.W.2d 1040; Roberts v. Benson, 142 S.W.2d 1058; Springfield v. Smith, 19 S.W.2d 1, 322 Mo. 1129; Davidson v. Lill, 35 S.W.2d 942; State ex rel. McCaffey v. Bailey, 308 Mo. 444, 272 S.W. 921; Ex parte Lerner, 281 Mo. 18, 218 S.W. 331; State v. Miksicek, 225 Mo. 561, 125 S.W. 507; State v. Mo. Tie & Timber Co., 181 Mo. 536, 80 S.W. 933; Colley v. Jasper County, 85 S.W.2d 942; Carson v. Baldwin, 144 S.W.2d 134. (3) The minimum wage scale constitutes an unconstitutional donation of public money. Art. IV, Secs. 46, 47, 48, Mo. Const; State ex rel. v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 45 S.W. 245; Deal v. Miss. County, 107 Mo. 464, 18 S.W. 24; Street v. Varney Electrical Supply Co., 61 L. R. A. l. c. 161; Frame v. Felix, 167 Pa. 47, 27 L. R. A. 802, Opinion affirmed 27 L. R. A. l. c. 807. (a) The construction contracts containing the minimum wage scale are contrary to the public policy of the State of Missouri, are such as to destroy competition, and are contrary to Article II, Sec. 30, of the Missouri Constitution, providing no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and prevent letting construction contracts to the lowest bidder. Art. II, Sec. 4, Mo. Const.; Art. II, Secs. 10, 15, 30, 31, Mo. Const.; Art. IV, Sec. 53, Par. 24, Mo. Const.; Hillig v. St. Louis, 337 Mo. 291, 85 S.W.2d 91; Thrasher v. Kirksville, 204 S.W. 804; State v. Mo. Tie & Timber Co., 181 Mo. 536, 80 S.W. 933; St. F. Quarry Co. v. Van Duser, 81 Mo.App. 519; Layne-Western Co. v. Buchanan County, 85 F.2d 343; Wilson v. Atlanta, 164 Ga. 560, 139 S.E. 148; Harlan v. Empl. Assn., 162 Md. 124, 81 A. L. R. 342; Ill. Power & Lt. Co. v. Centralia, 11 F.Supp. 875; 19 R. C. L., p. 1067, sec. 355; 3 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. (2 Ed.), p. 877, sec. 1301; 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (5 Ed.), p. 1215, sec. 808. (4) The offer of United States under date of October 2, 1936, and under which the plans and specifications were prepared by Burns and McDonnell, Engineers, the plans and specifications and the offer of the United States under date of June 9, 1938, embody an unlawful and invalid delegation of authority and control by the city to the United States; and in addition, such contracts and plans and specifications constitute a complete surrender of power by the City of Kennett to the United States. These contracts are clearly invalid. In fact, the offer of the United States under date of June 9, 1938, is not even signed by any official of the City of Kennett and so far as the offer of June 9, 1938, is concerned it is unilateral in character. Sec. 2962, R. S. 1929, Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 1827; Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Kennett, 78 F.2d 911; Aquamsi Land Co. v. Cape Girardeau, 142 S.W.2d 332; 43 C. J., sec. 213, p. 211, sec. 237, p. 239; 44 C. J., sec. 2129, p. 73; West Virginia Coal Co. v. St. Louis, 25 S.W.2d 466; City of Macon v. Trust Co., 21 S.W.2d l. c. 644; National Industrial Recovery Act, 1933, Title II, Sec. 206, 15 U.S.C. A., Sec. 701. (5) The offer of United States under date of October 2, 1936, making the adoption of the minimum wage scale and all of the other matters referred to therein by the city a condition precedent to the making of the loan and grant, and under which everything was done, including the preparation and adoption of the plans and specifications, constitutes an attempt to do indirectly that which the city did not have the power to do directly, and for such further reason makes the contracts invalid. City of Campbell v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., 55 F.2d 560; Hight v. Harrisonville, 328 Mo. 549, 41 S.W.2d 155; Hagler v. City of Salem, 333 Mo. 330, 62 S.W.2d 751; Kolb v. Golden Rule Baking Co., 9 S.W.2d l. c. 842; Hillside Securities Co. v. Minter, 254 S.W. l. c. 193. (6) The changed conditions shown by the evidence in the City of Kennett relative to the necessity and need of an adequate municipal plant that came about between the time the bonds were voted in August, 1933, and the time of the letting of the contracts, were such as to require a resubmission of the proposition to the voters of the City of Kennett before going forward in the construction of a half capacity plant that would be required to compete with the existing utility.

Arthur U. Goodman, Jr., Elbert L. Ford and Robert B. Fizzell for respondents; Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond and Bowersock, Fizzell & Rhodes of counsel.

(1) The minimum wage scale adopted by the City Council of Kennett and incorporated in the specifications and contracts is valid. (a) The City of Kennett had power to adopt a minimum wage scale. Secs. 6949, 6961, 7014, 7786, R. S. 1939; Taylor v. Dimmitt, 336 Mo. 330, 78 S.W.2d 841; State ex rel. Memphis v. Hackman, 273 Mo. 670, 202 S.W. 7; State ex rel. Kelly v. Hackman, 275 Mo. 636, 205 S.W. 161; State ex rel. Columbia v. Allen, 183 Mo 283, 82 S.W. 103; St. Louis Quarry & Construction Co. v. Frost, 90 Mo.App. 677; Curtice v. Schmidt, 202 Mo. 703, 101 S.W. 61; Wagner v. Milwaukee, 180 Wis. 640, 192 N.W. 994; Milwaukee v. Raulf, 164 Wis. 172, 159 N.W. 819; Jahn v. Seattle, 120 Wash. 403, 207 P. 667; Gies v. Broad, 41 Wash. 448, 83 P. 1025; Malette v. Spokane, 77 Wash. 205, 137 P. 496; Stover v. Winston Bros. Co., 185 Wash. 416, 55 P.2d 821; Norris v. City of Lawton, 47 Okla. 213, 148 P. 123; Stettler v. O'Hara, 69 Ore. 519, 139 P. 743. The city was acting in its proprietary capacity. Omaha Water Co. v. City of Omaha, 147 F. 1; Stover v. Winston Bros. Co., 185 Wash. 416, 55 P.2d 821. While a city may be restricted in regulating the terms of private contracts between private parties, it is not so restricted with respect to public contracts on work to be done for the city. Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207, 24 S.Ct. 124; In re J. T. Dalton, 61 Kan. 257, 59 P. 336; State v. McNally, 48 La. Ann. 1450, 21 So. 27; Norris v. City of Lawton, 47 Okla. 213, 148 P. 123. (b) The construction contracts are not rendered invalid by the minimum wage scale on the ground that the minimum wage scale prevented the letting of the contracts to the lowest bidders and increased the cost of the work. The case of Hillig v. City of St. Louis, 337 Mo. 291, 85 S.W.2d 91, was based on a provision contained in the charter of St. Louis requiring all public contracts to let to the lowest responsible bidder. No statutory or charter provision applicable to the City of Kennett requires such city to let its contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. Thrasher v. Kirksville, 204 S.W. 804; Warren v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 115 Mo. 572, 22 S.W. 490; Gast v. Langston, 15 S.W.2d 353; 2 Dillon's Mun. Corps. (5 Ed.), p. 1222, sec. 811. The minimum wage ordinance could not have increased the cost of the work in view of the Federal grant. Iowa Electric Co. v. Town of Cascade, 227 Iowa 480, 288 N.W. 633. (c) The power of the city to adopt a minimum wage scale was validly exercised. The constitutional provisions against special or class legislation were not violated. Thrasher v. Kirksville, 204 S.W. 804; Kiley v. Oppenheimer, 55 Mo. 374; Excelsior Springs v. Ettenson, 120 Mo.App. 215; Clapton v. Taylor, 49 Mo.App. 117; State v. McNally, 48 La. Ann. 1450, 21 So. 27. (d) The adoption of a minimum wage scale does not involve an unconstitutional donation of public money. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578. (2) The city has not illegally delegated its legislative power to the Federal Government. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Kennett, 78 F.2d 911; Aquamsi Land Co. v. Cape Girardeau, 142 S.W.2d 332; Memphis P. & L. Co. v. Memphis, 172 Tenn. 346, 112 S.W.2d 817; Warm v. Cincinnati, 57 Ohio App. 43, 11 N.E.2d 281; Lake Superior Dist. Power Co. v. City of Bessemer, 288 Mich. 455, 285 N.W. 20. (3) There has...