In re J. H. Williams

• Decision Date: 12 December 1908
• Docket Number: 16,198
• Citation: 98 P. 777,79 Kan. 212
• Parties: In re J. H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner. [*]
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

98 P. 777

79 Kan. 212

In re J. H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner. ^[*]

No. 16,198

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 12, 1908

Decided July, 1908.

Original proceeding in habeas corpus. Opinion filed. December 12, 1908. Petitioner remanded.

STATEMENT.

THE petitioner was convicted for selling to a coal-miner employed in a mine at the Central Coal and Coke Company, to be used in the mine, a quantity of black powder, which was not in an original package containing twelve and one-half pounds securely sealed, in violation of chapter 250 of the Laws of 1907, which provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any individual, firm or corporation to sell, offer for sale or deliver for use at any coal-mine or mines in the state of Kansas, black powder in any manner except in original packages containing twelve and one-half pounds of powder, said package to be securely sealed; said powder to be delivered by the company to the miner at its powder-house, not more than three hundred feet from pit-head unless hereafter otherwise provided by contract; provided however, this act shall not be construed as in any manner conflicting with any existing contract of sale of black powder." (§ 1.)

He was fined $ 50 for this offense, as provided in section 5 of the act, and committed to jail for failure to pay such fine. He thereupon sued out this writ of habeas corpus. The return sets out the complaint, warrant, judgment of the court, and commitment thereunder. The petitioner bases his right to release upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the act, and this is the only question presented. It is contended that the act violates the bill of rights in the state constitution and the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution by restricting the liberty of contract, by taking property without due process of law, by denying the equal protection of the laws, and by unlawful discrimination.

It is said that the petitioner's right to contract with reference to his labor and the means of labor is materially abridged by the conditions prescribed in this act, and that such abridgment is in violation of the guaranties of the instruments referred to. Counsel say:

"The miner himself would not have a right to bargain away his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These rights are inalienable. They are no more alienable by the miner than by those who, for the purpose of introducing the panacea of state guardianship and the extinction of individual rights, pay him the high compliment of saying that he shall be classed with infants, idiots and persons of non-sane memory, and that he does not possess sufficient capacity or intelligence to make his own contracts, or to look after his own best interests in a lawful and beneficial employment."

It is further insisted that the act is in conflict with section 17 of article 2 of the constitution, which provides that all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation, and that no special law shall be enacted where a general law can be made applicable.

And, finally, it is claimed that the act is void because it is in conflict with the so-called commerce clause of the federal constitution. It was stipulated upon the trial in this court, among other things, that the powder sold by the petitioner was in an unbroken original package, containing twenty-five pounds, imported from the state of Missouri by the company for which defendant was the agent; that black powder is an article of commerce among the states; and that black powder in packages of twelve and one-half pounds can not be bought or sold in the market except at a considerably higher price, but the fact that it was so imported from Missouri (and that packages of twelve and one-half pounds would be more expensive) was not shown at the trial upon the complaint before the justice.

Writ of mandamus denied.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Act Regulating Sale of Black Powder for Use in Coal-mines--Special Act--Police Regulations. Chapter 250 of the Laws of 1907, entitled "An act to protect mines, miners, and mine laborers, and defining the manner of sale and delivery of black powder for use in coal-mines of the state of Kansas," is not in conflict with the st ate constitution, or the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, and is not invalid as a regulation of interstate commerce.

Charles Blood Smith, and Daniel B. Holmes, for petitioner.

Fred S. Jackson, attorney-general, D. H. Woolley, county attorney, and W. J. True, deputy county attorney, for respondent; O. T. Boaz, of counsel.

OPINION

BENSON, J.:

Laws regulating the operation of coal-mines have been in force in this state since the year 1875. In that year a statute was enacted requiring the construction of escapement-shafts, guarding against the obstruction of airways, and otherwise providing for the safety of employees. (Laws 1875, ch. 115.) In 1883 an act was passed better to promote the same purposes, with more comprehensive regulations, requiring also the guarding of machinery and making provisions for safety appliances and for the inspection of coal-mines. (Laws 1883, ch. 117.) This act was amended in 1885, and the following provision was added:

"No miner, workman or other person shall take into any mine more than five pounds of powder at one time, and this shall be used before taking any more into the mine; and all powder or other explosive substance shall be kept in a close, tight vessel." (Laws 1885, ch. 143, § 2.)

Another act was passed in 1889 "to provide for the protection of life and property in and about coal-mines." (Laws 1889, ch. 172.) This act required the employment of "shot-firers," and provided regulations for shot-firing.

The following section was enacted in 1891:

"It shall be unlawful for any miner or other person to take into or have in his possession in any coal-mine shaft, slope, or pit, in this state, more than twelve and one-half (12 1/2) pounds of powder or any other explosive substance at any one time; and all such powder or other explosive substance shall be kept in a tight box securely locked, and such boxes shall be kept at least twenty yards from the working-face in all such coal-mine slopes, drifts, or pits; and it shall be the duty of all pit-bosses or other persons who shall be in charge and control of any coal-mine slope, drift or pit in this state, to keep watch over and see that the provisions of this act are complied with; and any person violating or neglecting to comply with the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction before any court having jurisdiction thereof, be fined in any sum not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than thirty days, for each and every such offense; and the possession of more than twelve and one-half pounds of powder, or any other explosive substance, in such coal-mine slope, or drift, shall be prima facie evidence of the person taking said powder, or other explosive substance, into such mine, slope, or drift." (Laws 1891, ch. 147, § 1.)

These various statutes, and some others relating to the same subject, will be found in sections 4109 to 4174, inclusive, of the General Statutes of 1901, and clearly indicate the policy of the state to provide for safety in the operation of coal-mines as a distinct subject of legislation. It will be observed, also, that this legislation has been progressive, provisions for safeguards having been added from time to time. In 1885 the first regulation was made concerning the use of explosives, limiting the quantity to be taken into the mine at one time to five pounds of powder or other explosive. In 1891 the quantity was increased to twelve and a half pounds, and additional precautions were provided. In the act of 1907, now under consideration, a specific regulation was made concerning black powder alone. Thus it appears that the legislature for many years has deemed it wise to restrict the use of explosives in coal-mines, and adopted this specific regulation as part of the law on that subject.

If this last act is void because it relates to coal-mines alone, and because it does not refer to lead, zinc, and other mines and quarries, as counsel contend, then for the same reason the other regulations contained in the statutes referred to must fall with it, for all are restricted to the one subject. That a law operates only upon a class does not make it invalid, if the classification is reasonable. If the classification is arbitrary or fictitious it is objectionable, but where it is based upon such differences in situation as to be reasonable in view of the purpose to be accomplished, and tends fairly to accomplish that purpose, it must be upheld. (Rambo v. Larrabee, 67 Kan. 634, 73 P. 915.) It is sufficient if the classification is based upon some reasonable ground--some differences which bear a just and proper relation to the attempted classification, and is not a mere arbitrary selection. (Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 18 S.Ct. 594, 42 L.Ed. 1037.)

The coal-mining industry of the state is of great and growing importance, about 12,000 men being employed in this occupation in this state. The hazards incident to this work are matters of common knowledge, and proper regulations to secure the safety of employees, so far as possible, is a matter appealing strongly to the wisdom and conscience of the legislature. Regulations to promote this beneficent end are not void because they do not relate to other industries, where, if the peril is as great, the conditions at least are different and may properly call for different regulations.

It is also contended that the act is void because the restrictions are upon black powder alone....