People v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 23 February 1934
• Docket Number: No. 22222.,22222.
• Citation: 189 N.E. 338,355 Ill. 289
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

355 Ill. 289

189 N.E. 338

PEOPLE

v.ANDERSON.

No. 22222.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 23, 1934.

Carl Anderson was convicted of violating the statute requiring owners of dairy or breeding cattle to submit their cattle for tuberculin test on request of department of agriculture, and he brings error.

Affirmed.Appeal from Henderson County Court; Max Kidder, Judge.

M. E. Nolan, of Oquawka, and Barnes & Magoon, of Lacon, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Earl Knox, State's Atty., of Oquawka, and Truman A. Snell, of Springfield (R. B. O'Harra, of Carthage, of counsel), for the People.

HERRICK, Justice.

An amended information was filed in the county court of Henderson county which charged the plaintiff in error, Carl Anderson(hereinafter called the defendant) with the violation of section 2 of the Bovine Tuberculosis EradicationAct of June 25, 1929, hereinafter referred to as the Tuberculosis Act(Smith-HurdRev. St. 1933, c. 8, § 88, p. 146;CahillRev. St. 1933, c. 8, par. 75 (32), p. 113).So far as material to the issues here, section 2 of the act is as follows: ‘All owners of dairy or breeding cattle within the State of Illinois shall submit their cattle for a tuberculin test upon request of the Department of Agriculture, and shall provide necessary facilities for making tests and render such assistance as may be required by the Department.The direct expense of making such tests shall be paid by the Department,’ etc.A motion to quash the amended information was overruled.A jury trial followed.The jury found the defendant guilty.A motion for new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment were severally overruled, and a judgment imposing a fine of $500 was entered against the defendant.He prosecutes this writ of error to reverse that judgment.

The facts are substantially as follows: The defendant on June 6, 1932, and for several years prior thereto as well as subsequent to such date, was living with his father and mother on a farm in Henderson county.The ownership of the farm was in the father.The ownership of the live stock hereinafter mentioned was a disputed fact on the trial of the case.There were on this farm on June 6 about twenty head of cattle, eight of which were cows.Dr. Zimmerman was a duly licensed veterinarian under the laws of this state and had been practicing his profession in this state for twenty-three years.For five years then last past he had been employed by the department of agriculture of this state (hereinafter referred to as the department) as a tuberculosis inspector.He was an ‘accredited veterinarian,’ as defined by subdivision (a) of section 1 of the Tuberculosis Act, Smith-Hurd St. 1933, c. 8, § 87(a).Dr. Santee was a duly licensed veterinarian under the laws of this state, and had practiced therein since 1914, and was a duly ‘accredited veterinarian.’He had been for four years immediately prior to June 6 a tuberculosis inspector under appointment by the department.On June 6 Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Santee went to the farm upon which the defendant resided.They met the defendant in the yard and some conversation ensued between the parties.There is some conflict as to just what words were spoken, but the evidence fairly tends to prove that the defendant was asked by Dr. Zimmerman if the cattle there on the place were his, to which he replied, ‘Yes.’Dr. Zimmerman then told the defendant that he(Dr. Zimmerman) and Dr. Santee were representatives of the department sent to test the defendant's cows.The defendant refused to permit the test of the cows and ordered the veterinarians off the premises and directed them to stay away.On the next day the two veterinarians returned with Dr. Jackson Brown, Dr. J. R. Mudd, and two constables.Dr. Brown is a veterinarian and by appointment of the department is the district tuberculosis inspector for the Northern district of Illinois.Henderson county is included in that district.Dr. Mudd is a local veterinarian living in Henderson county.On this occasion Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Santee, together with the two constables, went to the house where the defendant lived and there met him on the porch.In the conversation that followed Dr. Zimmerman told the defendant that he and Dr. Santee were the two men who had been there the preceding day and that they had returned to test the cattle.There is again a dispute in the evidence as to just what was said, but the defendant on that occasion refused to permit the test of the cattle and ordered the veterinarians off the premises.He then went inside the house, came back to the screen door with a shotgun in his hands, and told the two veterinarians and the two constables that he would give them until he counted ten to get out.The defendant's mother also appeared at the screen door and asked the men to leave before something terrible happened.The party left without any further attemptbeing made to test the cows alleged to belong to the defendant.The evidence further shows that subsequent to the filing of the amended information, and before the trial of the case in the court below, Dr. Brown had a conversation with the defendant in the courthouse at Oquawka.In this conversation the defendant asked Dr. Brown several questions relative to the tuberculin test as applied to dairy and breeding cattle, to all of which the doctor replied.At the close of this discussion the defendant informed Dr. Brown that he would not permit his cattle to be tested and that he was going to fight.

The errors assigned on the record charge that section 2 of the act in question is violative of the Constitution of this state and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution; also that the trial court erred in its rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence and in the giving and refusal of instructions, and that the guilt of the defendant was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

That tuberculosis is a disease dangerous to and destructive of the human race has been recognized by the Legislature of this state, and appropriate legislation has been adopted by the General Assembly for the treatment and cure, at the expense of cities and counties, of persons afflicted with this deadly disease.The health of the people is of prime importance to the state, both from an economic and social standpoint.It is the duty of the state to care for its sick and ailing who are not financially able to care for themselves, and this must necessarily be done at the expense of the taxpayer.With the increase of population, the task of preserving the health of the people has become more acute and pressing.The prevention of disease and the resulting prolongation of human life are therefore not only a financial saving to the state, but are also the promotion of the health and the happiness of the people.Tuberculosis is generally known to be a dangerous, infectious, or communicable disease which attacksboth the human race and domestic animals.The existence of tuberculosis in dairy cattle is dangerous to human beings, particularly infants and children of immature years.Dairy and breeding cattle may become afflicted with it from other cattle suffering from the disease.It may be communicated to mankind by milk and other food products from infected animals.Schulte v. Fitch, 162 Minn. 184, 202 N. W. 719;City of New Orleans v. Charouleau, 121 La. 890, 46 So. 911,18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 368, 126 Am. St. Rep. 332,15 Ann. Cas. 46.

This is the first occasion that the validity and constitutionality of this statute have been before this court.If the statute denies to the defendant any rights and privileges guaranteed to him under the Constitution of the United States or under the Constitution of this state, then the statute is not valid as a legitimate exercise of the police power of this state.Constitutional provisions are to be liberally construed in order that the legislative enactment may be sustained.All doubt and uncertainties arising from the Constitution itself, as well as those in the statute, should be resolved in favor of the validity of the statute.People v. Stitt, 280 Ill. 553, 117 N. E. 784;People v. McBride, 234 Ill. 146, 84 N. E. 865,123 Am. St. Rep. 82,14 Ann. Cas. 994.

Under our system of government, there are three separate departments-the legislative, executive, and judicial.The power to legislate is conferred by the Constitution upon the legislative branch of the government.The judicial department cannot interfere with or molest this prerogative.Only in those instances where the Legislature undertakes to enact legislation which is violative of either state or federal prohibitions can the courts interfere and declare such legislative acts unconstitutional and a usurpation of power by the Legislature.

The state has the inherent power, which may be exercised by the Legislature by way of legislative enactment, to place such restraint upon private rights as may be deemed necessary to preserve or improve the health and comfort of the people and the welfare of society.This power is generally called the police power.The Legislature may, in the exercise of this power, enact laws not only regulating and restraining, but also prohibiting, those things which are harmful to the well-being of the people; and this is true even though such regulation, restraint, or prohibition interferes with the liberty or property of an individual.Booth v. People, 186 Ill. 43, 57 N. E. 798,50 L. R. A. 762, 78 Am. St. Rep. 229, affirmed in184 U. S. 425, 22 S. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623;People v. Robertson, 302 Ill. 422, 134 N. E. 815, 22 A. L. R. 835;Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561, 26 S. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. 596, 4 Ann. Cas. 1175.The police power extends to the enactment by the Legislature of such laws as are reasonably necessary to the preservation and promotion of the health and welfare of the people, and it is not only the power but the duty of the Legislature to enact...