Northwestern Laundry v. City of Des Moines

• Decision Date: 10 January 1916
• Docket Number: No. 121,121
• Citation: 239 U.S. 486,60 L.Ed. 396,36 S.Ct. 206
• Parties: NORTHWESTERN LAUNDRY and T. R. Hazard, Appts., v. CITY OF DES MOINES et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

239 U.S. 486

36 S.Ct. 206

60 L.Ed. 396

NORTHWESTERN LAUNDRY and T. R. Hazard, Appts.,

v CITY OF DES MOINES et al.

No. 121.

Argued and Submitted December 9, 1915.

Decided January 10, 1916.

Mr. O. M. Brockett for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 487-488 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Eskil C. Carlson, H. W. Byers, and Earl M. Steer for appellees.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

The Northwestern Laundry and T. R. Hazard, its president, filed a bill in the district court of the United States for the southern district of Iowa, against the city of Des Moines, Iowa; James R. Hanna, mayor; W. A. Needham, commissioner; Zell G. Roe, commissioner; F. T. Van Liew, commissioner; J. I. Myerly, commissioner; W. H. Byers, commerce counsel; R. O. Brennan, city solicitor; Eskil C. Carlson, assistant city solicitor; Harry McNutt, smoke inspector; and Paul Beer, W. H. Harwood, L. Harbach, B. S. Walker, and Geo. France, members smoke abatement commission. The purpose of the bill was to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance of the city of Des Moines, effective September 6th, 1911, which provided that the emission of dense smoke in por- tions of that city should be a public nuisance and prohibited the same. To that end the ordinance authorized the appointment of a smoke inspector, and otherwise dealt with the subject with a view to effecting the prohibited purpose declared. The case was heard upon the bill and a motion practically amounting to a demurrer.

The bill and amended bill are very lengthy. For our purposes, their allegations and the requirements of the ordinance sufficiently appear in what is said in the discussion and disposition of the case.

The protection of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment is invoked. It is insisted that the ordinance is void because its standard of efficiency requires the remodeling of practically all furnaces which were in existence at the time of its adoption; it forbids remodeling or substituted equipment without a prescribed license; it forbids new construction without such license; it fails to specify approved equipment, and instead delegates, first to the inspector, and second, to the smoke abatement commission, the unregulated discretion to arbitrarily prescribe the requirements in each case, without reference to any other as to the required character of smoke prevention device, thus making the right of complainants and their class to own and operate such furnaces subject to the pleasure of the inspector and commission. It is averred that the ordinance exceeds the authority delegated to the city by the legislature; that it attempts to substitute its own definition of the crime and nuisance committed by the emission of dense smoke for that enacted by the legislature in the act under the pretended authority of which the ordinance is adopted; that it is unreasonable and tyrannical and exceeds the authority delegated for want of uniformity as to the whole city and because the exceptions specified are not natural and just. It is alleged that the ordinance prescribes arbitrary tests of degrees of density, and enables the inspector to present irrebutta- ble proof of violation; that it provides for unlimited prosecutions and successive fines, constituting excessive punishment in the aggregate, without adequate remedy or relief, and undertakes to deprive the courts of power to determine whether the nuisances have in fact been committed or maintained.

A motion to dismiss the bill covered three grounds: First, that the bill did not state any matter of equity entitling complainants to the relief prayed, nor were the facts, as stated in the bill, sufficient to entitle complainants to any relief against defendants; second, that the bill showed upon its face that the complainants have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law; and third, as it appeared on the face of the bill that the complainants were all residents of the state of Iowa, and the relief demanded was against an ordinance of the defendant city, the court was without jurisdiction. The court sustained the motion, and entered a final decree dismissing the bill with prejudice. There was no attempt to make a separate issue on the question of jurisdiction, or to take an appeal upon that question alone to this court. Judicial Code, § 238, 36 Stat. at L. 1157, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 1215.

The decree was a general one on the merits, and, as the bill charged a violation of the 14th Amendment not so frivolous as to fail to give original jurisdiction, the appeal to this court from the final decree brings the whole case here. Holder v. Aultman, M. & Co. 169 U. S. 81, 88, 42 L. ed. 669, 671, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269; Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 194 U. S. 618, 620, 48 L. ed. 1142, 1152, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 784; Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 230 U. S. 84, 91, 57 L. ed. 1400, 1406, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 997.

We are not furnished with any reference to an Iowa statute giving an adequate remedy at law, and we find none such. We have therefore to deal with the questions, Federal and state, made upon the face of the bill.

So far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, we have no doubt the state may by itself, or through authorized municipalities, declare the emission of dense smoke in cities or populous neighborhoods a nuisance and subject to restraint as such; and that the harshness of such legislation, or its effect upon business interests, short of a merely arbitrary enactment, are not valid constitutional objections. Nor is there any valid Federal constitutional objection in the fact that the regulation may require the discontinuance of the use of property, or subject the occupant to large expense in complying with the terms of the law or ordinance. Recent cases in this court are Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U. S. 171, 59 L. ed. 900, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Tranberger, 238 U. S. 67, 59 L. ed. 1204, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678; Hadacheck v. Sebastian, decided December 20th, 1915 [239 U. S. 394, 60 L. ed. ——, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 143.]

That such emission of smoke is within the regulatory power of the state has been often affirmed by state courts. Harmon v. Chicago, 110 Ill. 400, 51 Am. Rep. 698; Bowers v. Indianapolis, 169 Ind. 105, 81 N. E. 1097, 13 Ann. Cas. 1198; People v. Lewis, 86 Mich. 273, 49 N. W. 140; St. Paul v. Haugbro, 93 Minn. 59, 66 L.R.A. 441, 106 Am. St. Rep. 427, 100 N. W. 470, 2 Ann. Cas. 580; State v. Tower, 185 Mo. 79, 68 L.R.A. 402, 84 S. W. 10; Rochester v. Macauley-Fien Mill Co. 199 N. Y. 207, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 554, 92 N. E. 641. And such appears to be the law in Iowa. McGill v. Pintsch Compressing Co. 140 Iowa, 429, 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 466, 118 N. W. 786.

It is contended that the ordinance is in excess of the legislative authority conferred by the state of Iowa upon the city of Des Moines. This question does not seem to have been directly passed upon by the supreme court of Iowa.

The statute of Iowa enacted April 15th, 1911, before the...