City of St. Louis v. St. Louis R.R. Co.

• Citation: 14 Mo.App. 221
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 23 October 1883
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

14 Mo.App. 221

CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant,

v.ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Oct. 23, 1883.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, NOONAN, J.

Reversed and judgment.

LEVERETT BELL and ASHLEY C. CLOVER, for the appellant.

SMITH P. GALT, for the respondent.

LEWIS, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff complained in the first district police court of St. Louis, against the defendant, a street railway corporation, for having failed and refused, between the first and fifteenth days of July, 1882, to report to the city register a written statement under oath of the number of trips made by the cars of defendant, during three months, ending on the last day of June, 1882, and for having failed and refused, between the same dates, to report in like manner and to the same officer, the number of passengers carried by the defendant's cars during the same three months. The police court found the defendant guilty, and assessed a fine in the plaintiff's favor of $500. On an appeal to the court of criminal correction, judgment was given for the defendant.

The complaint was founded on section 11, of article IV., chapter 31, of the Revised Ordinances of the city of St. Louis, approved March 29, 1881, which reads as follows:--

“SEC. 11. It shall be the duty of each of the street railroad companies in the city of St. Louis, to report, under oath, to the city register, between the first and fifteenth days of the months of July, October, January and April of each year, by their president, secretary, or superintendent, the number of trips made and passengers carried over the road of which the person making the report is an officer, during the preceding three months, ending on the last day of the months of June, September, December, and March; and any failure to make the report required by this section shall subject the street railroad company so offending to a fine of not less than $500. It shall be the duty of the city register, if said reports show that any of said companies have carried an average of over eighteen persons per trip to each car, since their last previous return, to report such company to any of the police justices, and such company shall be subject to a fine of not less than $300 for the first offence, and a fine of not less than $500 for each subsequent offence.”

The cause was submitted in the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, which included an account of the number of cars and trips run, and passengers carried during the quarter year mentioned in the complaint, together with an admission that the defendant had failed and refused to make the reports as charged.

It is urged against the validity of the section of the ordinance above quoted, that it is repugnant to article V. of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, and to the twenty-third section of article XII. of the constitution of Missouri; that it is unauthorized by the city charter; that it is unreasonable, oppressive, and in restraint of trade. All the objections presented under these several heads are directed exclusively against that part of the section which provides for the imposition of a penalty for carrying more than a prescribed average number of passengers per trip, upon a report from the city register, to be based upon the reports furnished to him by the railway companies. It is claimed that this provision and the others in the section are so mutually connected with and dependent upon each other, as not to be severable, and that all must stand or fall together. It is obvious that upon this last proposition depends the pertinence of all the objections raised against the ordinance. If that part of the ordinance which is here sought to be enforced is severable from the rest, and contains within itself a complete enactment, having a distinct purpose, which may be carried into effect without any aid from the objectionable provisions, then it must stand upon its own merits, and can suffer no taint from a mere association in the same instrument with such provisions, however indefensible these may be.

Let it be conceded, for the purposes of this case, that the city authorities had no right or power whatever to limit the railway companies to an average of eighteen persons per trip, to each car, or to impose any penalty upon them for exceeding that number. It will result that the command to that effect...