Douglas v. People ex rel. Ruddy

• Decision Date: 21 February 1907
• Parties: DOUGLAS, Mayor, et al. v. PEOPLE ex rel. RUDDY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

225 Ill. 536

80 N.E. 341

DOUGLAS, Mayor, et al.

v.PEOPLE ex rel. RUDDY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kane County; C. A. Bishop, Judge.

Mandamus on the relation of J. J. Ruddy, against Henry B. Douglas, mayor, and others. From an adverse judgment, respondents appeal. Affirmed.

E. M. Mangan, City Atty., for appellants.

Frank R. Reid, State's Atty. (E. B. Quackenbush, of counsel), for the People.

HAND, J.

This was a petition filed in the circuit court of Kane county in the name of the people, upon the relation of J. J. Ruddy, a resident and taxpayer of the city of Aurora, in said county, against the mayor and aldermen of said city, for a writ of mandamus commanding the mayor to appoint, and the aldermen to confirm the appointment of, the second and third members of a board of examiners of plumbers, in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of an act of the General Assembly of the state of Illinois entitled ‘An act to provide for the licensing of plumbers and to supervise and inspect plumbing,’ approved June 10, 1897, in force July 1, 1897. Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, p. 403, c. 24. It was averred in the petition said mayor had refused to appoint said second and third members of said board of examiners, and that the city council would refuse to confirm their appointment, and that the city of Aurora was organized under the general law for the incorporation of cities and villages, and that it had a population of more than 10,000 inhabitants. A demurrer was filed to said petition by the respondents on the ground that said act of the General Assembly was in violation of section 1 of article 2 and section 22 of article 4 of the Constitution of the state of Illinois, and section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore unconstitutional and void. The demurrer was overruled, and, the respondents having elected to stand by their demurrer and refusing to answer over, a judgment was rendered against them in accordance with the prayer of said petition, and they have prosecuted an appeal to this court to review said judgment.

Section 1 of said act provides that any person now or hereafter engaging in or working at the business of plumbing in cities, towns, or villages of 5,000 inhabitants or more in this state, either as a master plumber or employing plumber or as a journeyman plumber, shall first receive a certificate in accordance with the provisions of said act.

Section 2 provides that any person desiring to engage in or work at the business of plumbing, either as a master plumber or employing plumber or as a journeyman plumber, shall make application to a board of examiners thereinafter provided for, and shall, at such time and place as said board may designate, be compelled to pass such examination as to his qualification as said board may direct. Said examination may be made in whole or in part in writing, and shall be of a practical and elementary character, but sufficiently strict to test the qualifications of the applicant.

Section 3 provides that there shall be in every city, town, or village of 10,000 inhabitants or more a board of examiners of plumbers, consisting of three members, one of whom shall be the chairman of the board of health, who shall be chairman of said board of examiners, the second member shall be a master plumber, and the third member shall be a journeyman plumber. Said second and third members of said board shall be appointed within three months after the passage of said act by the mayor and said appointment confirmed by the city council or trustees of said city, town, or village, and shall hold such appointment for a period of one year from the 1st day of May in the year of their appointment, and said second and third members shall be appointed annually thereafter, before the 1st day of May, which members shall be paid from the treasury of said city, town, or village in the same manner as other officers, in such sums as the city, town, or village authorities may designate.

Section 4 provides that said board of examiners shall, as soon as may be after their appointment, meet, and designate the times and places for the examination of all applicants desiring to engage in or work at the business or plumbing within their respective jurisdictions; and said board shall examine said applicants as to their practical knowledge of plumbing, house drainage, and plumbing ventilation, and, if satisfied of the competency of the applicant, shall thereupon issue a certificate to such applicant authorizing him to engage in or work at the business of plumbing, whether as master plumber or employing plumber or as a journeyman plumber, the fee for a certificate for a master plumber or employing plumber to be $5 and for a journeyman plumber $1, said certificate to be valid and have force throughout the state, and all fees received for certificates to be paid into the treasury of the city, town, or village where said certificates are issued.

Section 5 provides that each city, town, or village in this state having a system of water supply or sewerage shall, by ordinance or by-laws, within three months after the passage of said act, provide rules and regulations for the materials, construction, alteration, and inspection of all plumbing and sewerage placed in or in connection with any building in such city, town, or village, and the board of health or proper authorities shall further provide that no plumbing work shall be done, except in case or repairing leaks, without a permit being first issued therefor, upon such terms and conditions as such city, town or village shall prescribe.

Section 6 provides that all persons who are required to take examinations and procure a certificate, as required by said act, shall apply to the board in the city where he resides or to the board nearest his place of residence.

Section 7 provides that any person violating any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be subject to a fine of not less than $5 nor exceeding $50 for each and every violation thereof, and his certificate may be revoked by the board of health or the proper authorities of said city, town, or village.

Section 8 provides that all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with said act are repealed.

It is first contended that the act hereinbefore referred to is in conflict with those provisions of the Constitution of this state and of the United States which provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The right of the citizen to follow any legitimate business, occupation, or calling which he may see fit to engage in, and to use such right as a means of livelihood, is fully recognized in the Constitutions of this state and of the United States. Gillespie v. People, 188 Ill. 176, 58 N. E. 1007,52 L. R. A. 283, 80 Am. St. Rep. 176;Bessette v. People, 193 Ill. 334, 62 N. E. 215. Such right, however, is subject to the paramount right of the state to impose upon the enjoyment thereof any reasonable regulation the public welfare may require, and the courts have frequently held that the Legislatures of the several states may impose any restraint and prescribe any requirement they may deem proper for the protection of the public against the evils resulting from the incapacity and ignorance of persons engaged in the plumbing business, as master plumbers, employers of plumbers, or journeymen plumbers. Singer v. State of Maryland (Md.) 19 Atl. 1044,8 L. R. A. 551;People v. Warden of the City Prison (N. Y.) 39 N. E. 686,27 L. R. A. 718;State v. Gardner, 58 Ohio St. 599, 51 N. E. 136,41 L. R. A. 689, 65 Am. St. Rep. 785.

In the Singer Case, supra, the Supreme Court of Maryland said: ‘We all know that in a large city like Baltimore, with its extensive system of drainage and sewerage, the public health largely depends upon the proper and efficient manner in which the plumbing work is executed. And, this being so, the Legislature not only has the power to, but it is eminently wise and proper that it should, provide some mode by which the qualifications of persons engaged in that business shall be determined.’

In People v....