Felicitas v. Hartridge

• Decision Date: 24 February 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 790.)
• Citation: 98 S.E. 538,148 Ga. 832
• Parties: SISTER FELICITAS. v. HARTRIDGE, Sol. Gen.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

148 Ga. 832

98 S.E. 538

SISTER FELICITAS.

v.HARTRIDGE, Sol. Gen.

(No. 790.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 24, 1919.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Except as to the part dealt with in the second division of the opinion, the act of the General Assembly of this state, approved August 21, 1916 (Acts 1916, p. 126), entitled an act to provide for the inspection by state authorities of private institutions, etc., was properly held not to be unconstitutional upon the grounds urged in the attack made upon various sections of the act.

So much of the fourth section of the act just referred to declares it to be the duty of the grand jury to specially present the owner, keeper, custodian, or manager of such institution, in certain cases there stated, contains matter different from what is expressed in the title of that act, and is therefore unconstitutional and void.

(a) But the void part of section 4 may be segregated and eliminated without destroying the entire act, as it is not so essentially connected with the primary principle and purpose of the law as to render its elimination destructive of the whole.

(b) The part of the act declared unconstitutional and void did not affect the issue involved in the instant case, nor the judgment rendered by the court.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; P. W. Meldrim, Judge.

Contempt proceeding, on the relation of W. C. Hartridge, Solicitor General, against Sister Felicitas. From a judgment holding defendant guilty of contempt and enforcing a fine, she excepts and brings error. Affirmed.

Anderson, Cann, Cann & Walsh, of Savannah, King & Spalding, of Atlanta, Augustin Daly, of Macon, and Louis LeGarde Battey, of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

Walter C. Hartridge, Sol. Gen., of Savannah, pro se.

BECK, P. J. Pursuant to the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of this state, entitled an act to provide for the inspection by state authorities of private institutions, etc., approved August 21, 1916 (Acts 1916, p. 126), a committee of five members of the grand jury of the October term, 1917, of Chatham superior court, called at the Convent of the Sisters of Mercy, and at the Convent of the Franciscan Sisters, for the purpose of making the inquiry and investigation provided for in said act. Mother Clare, in charge of the Convent of the Sisters of Mercy, and Sister Felicitas, in charge of the Convent of the Franciscan Sisters, declined to permit the committee to make the investigation desired. This committee, through the grand jury, reported the refusal to the superior court. The solicitor general of the Eastern judicial circuit filed a petition to the superior court, reciting the facts just set forth, and setting up the contention that the refusal by Mother Clare and by Sister Felicitas constituted a contempt of court, and prayed that an order be passed requiring the respondents to show cause why they should not be adjudged guilty of contempt and be punished therefor; and an order to this effect was granted. Both respondents made answer to the rule, setting up, first, that the institution over which they presided was not within the purview of the act above referred to, for reasons set forth in the answer, and they attacked the act on numerous constitutional grounds. The judge of the superior court, after hearing evidence, discharged the rule as to Mother Clare, but held that Sister Felicitas was guilty of contempt, and imposed a fine. To this ruling Sister Felicitas excepted and brought the case by writ of error to this court for review.

1. The judge who heard the issues made by the rule and the answer, in passing upon the case and rendering the judgment complained of, delivered an opinion in writing, which (omitting only certain general observations made in the course of the opinion which do not materially affect the decision and discussion of the issues involved) is as follows:

"It appears that the respondent is the head of a private institution known as St. Francis Convent. That that institution is not only a convent but is also a 'private orphanage.' That no person is kept in confinement in the convent, and that the orphanage, which is for colored orphans, is governed by the usual and customary rules and regulations that obtain in orphan asylums. In a wide sense, the orphans are persons who are kept in confinement, and to this private orphanage the act approved August 21, 1916, applies.

"The constitutionality of the act is attacked on about forty grounds, great and small, general and special. I do not deem it necessary to consider in detail all of these grounds. They can be grouped together under three heads, of form, substance, and procedure. In the group 'form' falls the objection based on Code, § 6437, dealing with one subject-matter. Under this general ground there are six subdivisions. The first contention is that the act provides for in spection 'by state authorities, ' and that five members of a grand jury are not state authorities. The grand jury represents the state. It acts 'in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia.' Its action is taken to maintain the peace, good order, and dignity of the state. The county is only a subdivision of the state. In the enumeration of county officers grand juries are not included. There may be county authorities and state authorities;, but when the grand jury acts in matters of general welfare it is a state authority, and a committee from that body can be empowered by the state, acting through its Legislature, to make inspections 'of every private institution in which citizens of Georgia and other states are kept in confinement.' I cannot assume that the grand jury would act without legal evidence and the concurrence of at least twelve of its members.

"The second and third contentions are that the act provides for the examination and questioning of the inmates of these institutions, and that the caption provides only for inspection. Inspection and examination are synonymous terms, or are very nearly so; and if in order to make an inspection it is necessary to question an inmate, it is quite clear that the power given to inspect would include the power to question. The power being given, the usual and ordinary means for the exercise of the power are implied. Inspection, examination, questioning are all related, and are but the means employed to reach a given end, that is, the inspection of institutions in which citizens of Georgia and of other states are kept in confinement.

"The fourth and fifth contentions deal with the demand for release of an inmate and special presentment, while the sixth is a resume of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth contentions.

"The great purpose of the act is inspection of private institutions where citizens are kept inconfinement. Any instrumentality in aid of this purpose is not a subject-matter different from the title.

"In the group of 'substance' falls the objection, with its several subdivisions, based on Code, § 6358, dealing with protection to persons and property; the objection based on Code, § 6359, dealing with due process of law, with a like number of subdivisions; the objection based on Code, § 6372, dealing with searches and warrants, with its three subdivisions; and the...