Lasher v. People

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CARTWRIGHT
• Citation: Lasher v. People , 183 Ill. 226, 55 N.E. 663 (Ill. 1899)
• Decision Date: 18 December 1899
• Parties: LASHER v. PEOPLE. REICHWALD et al. v. SAME.

183 Ill. 226

55 N.E. 663

LASHER

v.PEOPLE.

REICHWALD et al.

v.SAME.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 18, 1899.

Error to criminal court, Cook county; Theodore Brentano, Judge.

Charles W. Lasher and Edward C. Reichwald and another were convicted of conducting a produce commission business without a license, and bring error. Reversed.

Darrow, Thomas & Thompson, for plaintiffs in error.

Charles S. Deneen, State's Atty. (W. M. McEwen, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for the People.

CARTWRIGHT, C. J.

Plaintiffs in error in these two cases were defendants in the criminal court of Cook county under indictments charging them with the violation of ‘An act to regulate the shipping, consignment and sale of produce, fruits, vegetables, butter, eggs, poultry or other products or property, and to license and regulate commission merchants and to create a board of inspectors and to prescribe its powers and duties,’ in force April 24, 1899. The indictment against Charles W. Lasher charged him with soliciting consignments of butter and eggs for sale on commission, as a commission merchant, without procuring a license from the board of inspectors of the state of Illinois to carry on said business. Edward C. Reichwald and William G. Reichwald were charged in the indictment against them with receiving on consignment, for sale on commission, as commission merchants, certain green and deciduous fruits, consisting of grapes, plums, and peaches, without first procuring such license. The defendants were tried before the court without a jury, and they raised the question of the validity of the statute providing for a board of inspectors and a license to be issued by such board, both by motions to quash the indictments and by propositions of law submitted to the court. The charges in the indictments were proved on the trials, and were not disputed. The court held the law valid, fined the defendants, and entered judgments against them.

The first section of the act in question provides for making reports to consignors, and remitting to them the proceeds of sale, with itemized statements, and for keeping records of transactions. The second section imposes a penalty for violating any of the provisions of the act. Sections 3 to 8, inclusive, are as follows:

‘Sec. 3. That a board of inspectors is hereby created, to be composed of one member from each of the following organizations: Illinois State Horticultural Society, Illinois State Dairymen's Association, Illinois State Retail Dealers' Association, Chicago Butter and Egg Board and Chicago branch of National League of Commission Merchants. In case any of the aforesaid organizations are not incorporated under the laws of the state of Illinois at the time of going into effect of this act, they shall not be disqualified from furnishing said members if the incorporation is completed on or before January 1, 1900. The members of said board of inspectors shall be selected from the membership of said organizations by the members thereof at some regular or special meeting at which there shall be a quorum, and shall serve for a period of one year. In case of the failure or refusal of any such organization to so elect a member of such board of inspectors, it shall be the duty of the remaining members of said board to fill such vacancy by the selection of some person representing the line of business the representative organization of which has failed or refused to so elect. Each member of said board shall receive as his compensation the sum of ten dollars ($10) for each session attended, and ten cents per mile additional when required to travel a distance of more than ten miles to attend such meeting.

‘Sec. 4. Said board of inspectors shall organize by electing from their number a president, a vice-president and a treasurer, and may appoint a secretary, and, if needed, two inspectors, such secretary and inspectors to be compensated by said board. It shall be the duty of the secretary to receive complaints regarding the disposition of the articles of country produce shipped on commission to licensed receivers, and instruct inspectors to investigate the same, and make a report to be submitted to said board at its next regular meeting.

‘Sec. 5. Said board shall meet monthly on the second Wednesday of each month for the purpose of transacting such business as may come before them; and said board is hereby authorized to provide a room or place of meeting and for permanent headquarters in the city of Chicago at an annual rental of not more than seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750), said rent to be paid from the funds of said board. A detailed statement of all expenditures of the board shall be made to the governor each year.

‘Sec. 6. Every person, firm or corporation in the state of Illinois, doing business in a city of more than fifty thousand population receiving on consignment for sale on commission butter, eggs, poultry, game, dressed calf, green and deciduous fruits, berries, and other commodities the product of the farm, with the exception of grains, live stock and dressed meats, shall first procure from the board a license to carry on said business, for which said party or parties shall pay into the state treasury the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) annually, said license to be renewed annually.

‘Sec. 7. The board shall have power to prescribe a system of books and accounts to be kept by licensed commission receivers, and said inspectors and members of said board, or duly authorized agents of said board, shall have access to such books, accounts and memoranda upon demand, and have power to send for books and papers, and examine under oath. Any refusal upon the part of said licensed dealers to exhibit such said books, accounts or memoranda, when called upon to do so by such legally constituted authorities, shall forfeit the license held, which shall not be re-issued inside of three months without unanimous consent of said board.

‘Sec. 8. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to receive or solicit consignments of such country produce as is mentioned in this act without first obtaining such license, and violators shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $200, and it shall be the duty of the state's attorney of the county wherein prosecutions are brought to prosecute such violations, and the board may, at its discretion, employ such counsel as they may deem necessary for the prosecution of such violation.’

The remainder of the act makes provision for the prosecution of offenses and the revocation of licenses by the board, requires the payment of a fee of one dollar by any person making complaint, which is to be turned over to the treasurer of the state, and provides for the payment of expenses of the board out of the state treasury.

It is first argued that the statute is invalid as discriminating between commission merchants, because it excepts those who deal in grain, live stock, and dressed meats. The claim is that produce commission merchants constitute a class, and that the legislature must require a license from all or none. This objection to the law is not valid. The legislature have power to form classes for the purpose of police regulation, if they do not arbitrarily discriminate between persons in substantially the same situation. The discrimination must rest upon some reasonable ground of difference, but the classification in this case is a natural one. The commission merchants dealing in the kinds of produce named in this act, which constitute the small products of the farm, are of a different class from those who transact business in the great markets for the sale of grain, live stock, and dressed meats. The state laws for the inspection of grain provide for the protection of shippers in that market, and there is also state inspection of live stock and dressed meats. The law which classifies small commission merchants engaged in the produce commission business rests upon a reasonable ground as a basis for the classification. Such a business may afford great opportunities for swindling,...