Buck v. Bell Superintendent Of State Colony For Epileptics

• Decision Date: 12 November 1925
• Citation: 130 S.E. 516
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: BUCK. v. BELL, Superintendent of State Colony for Epileptics and FeebleMinded.

130 S.E. 516

BUCK.

v.BELL, Superintendent of State Colony for Epileptics and FeebleMinded.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 12, 1925.

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Due Process of Law.]

Error to Circuit Court, Amherst County.

Action by Carrie Buck by R. G. Shelton, her guardian and next friend, against Dr. J. H. Bell, Superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

I. P. Whitehead, of Lynchburg, for plaintiff in error.

Strode & Edmunds, of Lynchburg, for defendant in error.

WEST, J. Carrie Buck, by R. G. Shelton, her guardian and next friend, complains of a judgment of the circuit court of Amherst county by which Dr. J. H. Bell, superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-minded, was ordered to 'perform on her the operation of salpingectomy, for thepurpose of rendering her sexually sterile. See part of the Virginia Sterilization Act copied in the margin.¹

After requiring the service of a copy of the petition and notice of the time and place when the special board of directors will hear and act on the petition upon the inmate and her guardian, and, if the inmate be an infant, upon the living parents, and giving the inmate the right to be represented by counsel, the act further provides:

"The said special board may deny the prayer of the said petition or if the said special board shall find that the said inmate is insane, idiotic, imbecile, feeble-minded or epileptic, and by the laws of heredity is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring likewise afflicted, that the said inmate may be sexually sterilized without detriment to his or her general health, and that the welfare of the inmate and of society will be promoted by such sterilization, the said special board may order the said superintendent to perform or to have performed by some competent physician to be named in such order upon the said inmate, after not less than thirty days from the date of such order, the operation of vasectomy if a male or of salpingectomy if a female; provided that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the operation of castration nor the removal of sound organs from the body."

The statute then provides that the special board, the superintendent, the inmate or his committee, guardian or next friend, may appeal from the order of the board to the circuit court, and that any party to such appeal in the circuit court may apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals for an appeal from the final order therein,

On the 23d day of January, 1924, Carrie Buck was adjudged to be feeble-minded within the meaning of the Virginia statute, and committed to the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded. On September 10, 1924, A. S. Priddy, then superintendent of the colony, presented to the special board of direc tors his petition praying for an order that Carrie Buck be sexually sterilized by the surgical operation known as salpingectomy. The hearing was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute, and, upon tho evidence introduced before them, the board entered the order prayed for. From this order an appeal was taken by Carrie Buck and It. G. Shelton, her guardian and next friend, to the circuit court of Amherst county. Upon the record and evidence introduced at the trial in the circuit court the judgment complained of was entered, from which this appeal was allowed.

These facts, among others, appear from the evidence:

The operation of salpingectomy is the cutting of the fallopian tubes between the ovaries and the womb, and the tying of the ends next to the womb. The ovaries are left intact, and continue to function. The operation of vasectomy consists of the cutting down of a small tube which runs from the testicle, without interference with the testicle. These operations do not impair the general health, or affect the mental or moral status of the patient, or interfere with his or her sexual desires or enjoyment. They simply prevent reproduction. In the hands of a skilled surgeon, they are 100 per cent, successful in results.

At the time Carrie Buck was committed to the State Colony for Epileptics and FeebleMinded she was 17 years old, and the mother of an illegitimate child of defective mentality. She had the mind of a child 9 years old, and her mother had theretofore been committed to the same colony as a feeble; minded person. Carrie Buck, by the laws of heredity, is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise affected as she is. Unless sterilized by surgical operation, she must be kept in the custodial care of the colony for 30 years, until she issterilized by nature, during which time she will be a charge upon the state. If sterilized under the law, she could be given her liberty and secure a good home, under supervision, without injury to society. Her welfare and that of society would be promoted by such sterilization.

The appellant contends that the judgment is void because the Virginia Sterilization Act is repugnant to the provisions of the state and federal Constitutions (Const. Va., art. 1, §§ 9, 11; Const. U. S. Amends. 8, 14) in that:

(a) It does not provide due process of law;

(b) It imposes a cruel and unusual punishment; and

(c) It denies the appellant and other inmates of the State Colony the equal protection of the law.

1. An adjudication by an impartial tribunal, vested with lawful jurisdiction to hear and determine the questions involved, after reasonable notice to the parties interested and an opportunity for them to be heard, fulfills all the requirements of due process of law.

In Commissioners v. Hampton Roads Oyster Co., 109 Va. 585, 64 S. E. 1041, Judge Cardwell, speaking for the court, said:

"It is very true that 'due process of law' requires that a person shall have reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before an impartial tribunal before any binding decree or order can be made affecting his rights to liberty or property; but this constitutional safeguard cannot avail appellee upon the uncontradicted facts as to the proceedings before the board of fisheries and the commission of fisheries touching this controversy. The proceedings were had before the board of fisheries and its successor in office, a department of the state government, to whose judgment and discretion the Legislature has committed the supervision and control of the natural oyster beds, rocks and shoals within the waters of the commonwealth, as well as the oyster industry of the commonwealth, and made the decision of that tribunal conclusive of all controversies with respect to the same. The proceedings in this case before that tribunal were in strict accordance with the requirements of the statute, and not only did appellee have reasonable notice thereof, but every reasonable opportunity to be heard, and was heard from time to time before the order it now complains of was made by the board. It would be difficult to find a case in which the required 'due process of law' has been more fully met and complied with."

In Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 23 S. Ct. 390, 47 L. Ed. 563, the following is quoted with approval from the opinion of Mr. Justice Matthews in Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 4 S. Ct.1ll, 292, 28 L. Ed. 232, after reviewing the authorities and discussing the elements of due process of law:

"It follows that any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in the furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law."

See, also, Murray v. Hoboken L. Co., 18 How. 272, 15 L. Ed. 372; Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 265, 2 S. Ct. 569, 27 L. Ed. 552.

The language just quoted in the Reetz Case is also quoted with approval by Judge Cardwell in the case of 109 Va., supra.

In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 29 S. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97, Mr. Justice Moody, speaking for the court, stated the law thus:

"Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 733, 24 L. Ed. 565, 572; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 14 S. Ct. 1108, 38 L. Ed. 896; Old Wayne Mut. Life Asso. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236, 51 L. Ed. 345), and that there shall be notice and opportunity for hearing given the parties. Hovey v. Elliott. 167 U. S. 409, 17 S. Ct. 841, 42 L Ed. 215; Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398, 20 S. Ct. 410, 44 L Ed. 520; and see Londoner v. Denver, 210 U. S. 373, 28 S. Ct. 708, 52 L. Ed. 1103. Subject to these two fundamental conditions, which seem to be universally prescribed in all systems of law established by civilized countries, this court has, up to this time, sustained all state laws, statutory or judicially declared, regulating procedure, evidence, and methods of trial, and held them to be consistent with due process of law."

There is no controversy as to the legality or regularity of the proceedings by which appellant was adjudged to be feeble-minded and committed to the State Colony.

The statute under review clearly vests the special board of directors of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded, after notice according to law, with jurisdiction to hear and determine the prayer of any petition filed by the superintendent of the colony for the sexual sterilization of an inmate thereof.

In the instant case, the proceeding was strictly in conformity with the statute. The superintendent of the colony, having first served a copy of the petition and a notice of the time and place it would be presented on the inmate, her guardian, and her mother, her father being dead, presented to the special board of directors of the colony his petition, stating the facts of the case and the grounds of his opinion,...