Charles Barrett v. State of Indiana, No. 245
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Day |
| Citation | 229 U.S. 26,33 S.Ct. 692,57 L.Ed. 1050 |
| Docket Number | No. 245 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1913 |
| Parties | CHARLES E. BARRETT, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF INDIANA |
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
Page 27
Messrs. John C. Chaney and Charles E. Barrett for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Thomas M. Honan, Attorney General of Indiana, and Messrs. Edwin Corr, Thomas H. Branaman, and James E. McCullough for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff in error was convicted in a circuit court of Indiana of the violation of a statute of that state, requiring entries in certain coal mines to be of not less than a pre-
Page 28
scribed width. The case was twice before the supreme court of Indiana. 172 Ind. 169, 87 N. E. 7; 175 Ind. 112, 93 N. E. 543. From the judgment in the latter case, affirming the conviction, a writ of error was prosecuted. The assignments of error raise the question of the validity of the statute under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The statute provides (Burns's Anno. Stat. [Ind.] 1908):
'8582. Width of entries.—1. That it shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee, agent, or operator of any coal mine within the state of Indiana, to make, dig, construct, or cause to be made, dug, or constructed, any entry or trackway after the taking effect of this act, in any coal mine in the state of Indiana where drivers are required to drive with mine car or cars unless there shall be a space provided on one or both sides continuously of any track or tracks, measured from the rail, in any such entry, of at least two (2) feet in width, free from any props, loose slate, debris, or other obstruction, so that the driver may get away from the car or cars and track in event of collision, wreck, or other accident. It shall be unlawful for any employee, person, or persons to knowingly, purposely, or maliciously place any obstruction within said space as herein provided: Provided, That the geological veins of coal numbers three and four, commonly known as the lower and upper veins in the block coal fields of Indiana, shall be exempt from the provisions of this act.'
The next section provides that anyone violating the act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and prescribes the penalty.
That the legislatures of the states may, in the exercise of the police power, regulate a lawful business, is too well settled to require more than a reference to some of the cases in this court in which that right has been sustained as against objections under the 14th Amendment.
Page 29
Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 44 L. ed. 725, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 633; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 49 L. ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765; McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539, 53 L. ed. 315, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 206; Williams v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 79, 54 L. ed. 673, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493, 18 Ann. Cas. 865; Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173, 54 L. ed. 987, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644; Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 57 L. ed. ——, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182. That the mining of coal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Jane Doe, No. 00-0224
...it." -Felix Frankfurter1 "It is the province of the legislature to make the laws; and of the courts to enforce them." Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U.S. 26, 30 In deciding this case we squarely confront the question of whether, as judges, we should apply the Parental Notification Act as it is wri......
-
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections Butts v. Harrison, Nos. 48
...state policy. See, e.g., Powell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S.Ct. 992, 32 L.Ed. 253; Barrett v. State of Indiana, 229 U.S. 26, 33 S.Ct. 692, 57 L.Ed. 1050; Walters v. City of St. Louis, 347 U.S. 231, 74 S.Ct. 505, 98 L.Ed. 660; Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct.......
-
Vigeant v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
...fair and substantial relation to the object sought to be accomplished by the legislation.’ The principle was stated in Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U. S. 26, 30, 33 S. Ct. 692, 693 (57 L. Ed. 1050), as follows: ‘The Legislature is permitted to make a reasonable classification and before a court ......
-
Gwinn Area Community Schools v. State of Mich., No. M82-199 CA2.
...to a state law, the court is required only to "measure the basic validity of the legislative classification." Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U.S. 26, 29-30, 33 S.Ct. 692, 693, 57 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1913). As the Supreme Court has "Most laws classify, and many affect certain groups unevenly, even though......
-
In re Jane Doe, No. 00-0224
...it." -Felix Frankfurter1 "It is the province of the legislature to make the laws; and of the courts to enforce them." Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U.S. 26, 30 In deciding this case we squarely confront the question of whether, as judges, we should apply the Parental Notification Act as it is wri......
-
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections Butts v. Harrison, Nos. 48
...state policy. See, e.g., Powell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S.Ct. 992, 32 L.Ed. 253; Barrett v. State of Indiana, 229 U.S. 26, 33 S.Ct. 692, 57 L.Ed. 1050; Walters v. City of St. Louis, 347 U.S. 231, 74 S.Ct. 505, 98 L.Ed. 660; Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct.......
-
Vigeant v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
...fair and substantial relation to the object sought to be accomplished by the legislation.’ The principle was stated in Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U. S. 26, 30, 33 S. Ct. 692, 693 (57 L. Ed. 1050), as follows: ‘The Legislature is permitted to make a reasonable classification and before a court ......
-
Gwinn Area Community Schools v. State of Mich., No. M82-199 CA2.
...to a state law, the court is required only to "measure the basic validity of the legislative classification." Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U.S. 26, 29-30, 33 S.Ct. 692, 693, 57 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1913). As the Supreme Court has "Most laws classify, and many affect certain groups unevenly, even though......