Bates v. State Bridge Comm'n. State Bridge Comm'n, ( No. 428
| Decision Date | 13 May 1930 |
| Docket Number | ( No. 429),( No. 428 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bates v. State Bridge Commission et al.State Bridge Commission v. H. G. Nease Co. |
1. Chapter 8, Acts 1929, creating the state bridge commission, and defining its powers and duties in the purchase, construction, and improvement of bridges over navigable streams in and bordering the state for the use of the public, does not violate any provision of the Constitution.
Case Certified from Circuit Court, Mason County.
Suit by Ed Bates against the State Bridge Commission and others, and condemnation proceedings by the State Bridge Commission against the H. G. Nease Company. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the bill in the first case and overruled motion to quash and dismiss condemnation petition, and certified his rulings for review.
Affirmed.
William H. Rardin and F. G. Musgrave, for plaintiffs. Hogg & Hogg, Howard B. Lee, Attorney General., and R. Dennis Steed, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.
Lively, President:
By demurrer to the bill in cause No. 428, and by motion to quash the petition for condemnation in case No. 429, the constitutionality of chapter 8, Acts 1929, was raised. The bill in the first named cause seeks a perpetual injunction against the state bridge commission restraining it from exercising its powers under the act; and the petition in the other case seeks condemnation of defendant's lands for bridge purposes under the act. The circuit court sustained the demurrer to the bill, and overruled the motion to quash and dismiss the petition for condemnation, thus sustaining the constitutionality of the act, and certified his rulings for review.
The sole question presented here is the constitutionality of chapter 8, Acts 1929, which creates the state bridge commission and defines its powers and duties.
The duty of the court to pass upon the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, a co-ordinant branch of the government, is a duty of extreme delicacy, and it is to be exercised with the greatest caution, and even with reluctance. State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179, 10 S. B. 285, 6 L. R. A. 621, 25 Am. St. Rep. 863. Every law enacted by the Legislature is presumed to be constitutional until the contrary is clearly shown. It is the duty of the court to uphold every act if by any reasonable construction and interpretation it can be seen that the act is not in contravention of the fundamental law. If there be any doubt in the mind of the court as to the constitutionality, the doubt must be solved in favor of the act. Slack v. Jacob, 8 W. Va. 612. Only in a case of very plain infraction of the constitution, from which there is no escape, should the courts declare an act invalid. If there be doubt, the act must be affirmed. Ex parte McNeeley, 36 W. Va. 84, 14 S. E. 436, 15 L. R. A. 226, 32 Am. St. Rep. 831. On the other hand, wrhere the act is in plain violation of some constitutional provision, and there is no escape from that conclusion, the courts should promptly and firmly uphold the Constitution and invalidate the act. With these well-known rules of construction in mind, often reiterated in our decisions, we approach the question here presented.
The purpose of the act is to purchase and build, through a state agency, bridges over navigable rivers in the state, or those forming a boundary of the state, and pay therefor solely with tolls derived from the bridges; and, when the revenue shall have paid the purchase price or construction charges, then the bridge to become free, except as to nominal tolls for maintenance; and it is provided that other means than tolls may be invoked to maintain the bridges; all as a part of the system of state highways. The act is well drawn, the objects and purposes clearly stated, and the powers and duties of the commission clearly defined.
It is urged against the act that the power given the commission to issue bridge revenue bonds of the state for the purchase or erection of bridges is an unauthorized delegation of legislative powers. The Legislature has provided that bridges may be purchased or constructed under the act, and paid for out of the revenue derived therefrom. The exercise of judgment and discretion by the commission as to whether it will buy or build and what bridges it will buy or build is administrative. It is not perceived what provision of the Constitution is thus violated. Many boards and commissions have been created and clothed with judgment and discretion in carrying out legislative purposes, such as the state board of control, the state road commission, and the public service commission.
It is urged that the act violates the letter and spirit of section 4, article 10, of the Constitution, which says that "No debt shall be contracted by this State, except to meet casual deficits in the revenue, to redeem a previous liability * * * to suppress insurrection, repel invasion or defend the State in time of war." It is argued that the bonds authorized to be issued by the commission are debts of the state. Are these bonds a debt of the state within the meaning of said section 4, above quoted? The act expressly says in section 12 thereof that nothing therein shall be construed or interpreted to authorize the incurring of a state debt of any kind or nature. The payment of the bonds is to be made exclusively from the revenues derived from the bridges. No other revenues are applicable. Taxation for their redemption in any form cannot be imposed. The state cannot be compelled to pay them. The act itself is a part of the bonds as if written therein in extenso. The purchasers of the bonds are bound by the act, and cannot look to the state for payment. The bonds are not debts of the state within the meaning of the Constitution, above quoted. When our Constitution of 1872 was formed, the experience of the mother state with debts contracted by her, and with suits to compel payment, were fresh in the minds of the framers of that Constitution. Numerous suits ending in heavy judgments and costs had been prosecuted against the commonwealth; illiberal contracts and guaranties of enterprises had been made by governmental agencies detrimental to her interests; public officers and agencies had not been always zealous and careful in the conduct of public affairs; and juries leaned toward the individ- ual as against the commonwealth. With this experience, the framers of the Constitution of 1872 provided that this state should not contract indebtedness, except in specified instances, and that the state should never be made defendant in any court of law or equity. The debts against which the prohibition lies are those for which suit may be maintained or the state's revenues and resources pledged or sequestered.
The great weight of decisions is that bonds of a state or political subdivision payable solely out of revenue derived from a utility of a public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hall v. Taylor, 12995
...of constitutionality involved in the instant case was not raised, considered or decided in the Bailey case. Bates v. State Bridge Commission, 109 W.Va. 186, 153 S.E. 305, involved the constitutionality of a statute which created the State Bridge Commission as a state agency and provided for......
-
State v. Memorial Gardens Development Corp.
...U.S. 869, 74 S.Ct. 123, 98 L.Ed. 379; Blevins v. State Compensation Commissioner, 127 W.Va. 481, 33 S.E.2d 408; Bates v. State Bridge Commission, 109 W.Va. 186, 153 S.E. 305; Holliday v. Elkhorn-Piney Coal Mining Co., 102 W.Va. 147, 134 S.E. The majority concedes, as it must, Quesenberry v.......
-
Quesenberry v. Estep
...122 W.Va. 392, 9 S.E.2d 521; Chapman v. Huntington [W.Va.] Housing Authority, 121 W.Va. 319, 3 S.E.2d 502; Bates v. State Bridge Commission, 109 W.Va. 186, 153 S.E. 305; State ex rel. Public Service Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 76 W.Va. 399, 85 S.E. 714; Blue v. Smith, 69 W.Va.......
-
State v. City of Miami
... ... Alabama ... State Bridge Corp. v. Smith, 217 Ala. 311, 116 So. 695; ... 428, 258 ... P. 571; Lang v. City of Cavalier, 59 ... Clausen, 134 Wash. 196, 235 P. 364; Bates v. State ... Bridge Commission, 109 W.Va. 186, ... ...