Com. v. Danziger

• Decision Date: 05 June 1900
• Citation: 176 Mass. 290,57 N.E. 461
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. DANZIGER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

176 Mass. 290

57 N.E. 461

COMMONWEALTH v. DANZIGER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 5, 1900

COUNSEL

Robert Levi, for appellant.

M. J Sughrue, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

MORTON J.

1. The offense is created by statute, and the complaint charges the offense in the words of the statute. As a general rule, it is sufficient in such cases to charge the offense in the words of the statute. Com. v. Hodgkins, 170 Mass. 197, 49 N.E. 97; Com. v. Prescott, 151 Mass. 60, 23 N.E 729. We can see no reason for departing in the present case from the general rule, and think that the complaint is clearly sufficient.

2. The statute was enacted under and by virtue of what is termed the 'police power'; that is, the power to make and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws and statutes for the good and welfare of the commonwealth. It is not necessary that statutes passed in the exercise of that power should apply equally and uniformly to all citizens of the commonwealth, in order to be constitutional. It is sufficient if they apply equally and uniformly to all who are similarly circumstanced, and are not otherwise objectionable. Such statutes have been upheld as constitutional in numerous instances. In re Goddard, 16 Pick. 504; Inhabitants of Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315 318, and cases cited; Com. v. Roberts, 155 Mass 281, 29 N.E. 522, 16 L. R. A. 400; Com. v. Parks, 155 Mass. 531, 30 N.E. 174; Opinion of Justices, 163 Mass. 589 (In re House Bill No. 1,230) 40 N.E. 713; Cole v. Tucker, 164 Mass. 486, 41 N.E. 681, 29 L. R. A. 668; Newton v. Joyce, 166 Mass. 83, 44 N.E. 116; Com. v. Morris (Mass.) 56 N.E. 896. We see nothing in the present case that renders the statute under which this complaint was instituted unconstitutional in any other respect. There can be no doubt about the right of the legislature to regulate the business of pawnbrokers, or of persons engaged in the kind of business described in the statute under which this complaint is brought. Neither can there be any doubt as to its right to limit such regulations to persons carrying on such business in cities and towns of 10,000 inhabitants or more. The effect may be to compel persons carrying on the business in cities or towns of 10,000 inhabitants or more to pay a license which persons engaged in the business in cities or towns of less than 10,000 inhabitants are not obliged to pay, but...