Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Corp. of Mo. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission

• Citation: 193 S.W.2d 1,354 Mo. 1017
• Decision Date: 11 March 1946
• Docket Number: 39599,39600
• Parties: Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Corporation of Missouri, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Unemployment Compensation Commission of Missouri and Elmer John Keitel, Sr., Harry P. Drisler and Carl J. Henry, Members of the Commission (two cases)
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

193 S.W.2d 1

354 Mo. 1017

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Corporation of Missouri, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Unemployment Compensation Commission of Missouri and Elmer John Keitel, Sr., Harry P. Drisler and Carl J. Henry, Members of the Commission (two cases)

Nos. 39599, 39600

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 11, 1946

Appeal from Cole Circuit Court; Hon. Edward T. Eversole Judge.

Affirmed.

L M. Turner, Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States, and H. M. Langworthy for appellant; Langworthy, Matz & Linde of counsel.

(1) The court below erred in failing to hold that Section 9427 (j) Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1939, as amended by the Laws of Missouri, 1943, is violative of Article II, Section 15, Missouri Constitution, 1875, in that it is retrospective in its operation. Murphy v. Limpp, 347 Mo. 249, 147 S.W.2d 420; Smith v. Dirckx, 283 Mo. 188, 223 S.W. 104; Society v. Wheeler, Fed. Cas. No. 13156; State ex rel. Ross v. Gen. Amer. Life Ins. Co., 336 Mo. 829, 85 S.W.2d 68; Willhite v. Rathburn, 332 Mo. 1208, 61 S.W.2d 708; McManus v. Park, 287 Mo. 109, 229 S.W. 211; Drainage District v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S.W. 12; Cranor v. School Dist., 151 Mo. 119, 52 S.W. 232; Leete v. State Bank of St. Louis, 115 Mo. 184, 21 S.W. 788; Hope Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flynn, 38 Mo. 483; Stouffer v. Crawford, 248 S.W. 581; State of Missouri v. Earhart, 111 F.2d 992; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386. (2) The court below erred in failing to hold that Section 9427 (j), as amended, is violative of Articles III, IV and X, Section 1, Missouri Constitution, 1875, in that it unlawfully delegates to the Executive Department powers properly belonging exclusively in the Legislative Department. State ex rel. Field v. Smith, 329 Mo. 1019, 49 S.W.2d 74; Haeussler Inv. Co. v. Bates, 306 Mo. 392, 267 S.W. 632; Ex parte Cavanaugh, 313 Mo. 375, 280 S.W. 51; Myer & Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 348 Mo. 147, 152 S.W.2d 184; State ex rel. Prewitt v. Thompson, 334 Mo. 144, 66 S.W.2d 109; State ex inf. v. Colbert, 273 Mo. 198, 201 S.W. 52; Hays v. City of Poplar Bluff, 263 Mo. 516, 173 S.W. 676; Merchants Exchange v. Knott, 212 Mo. 616, 111 S.W. 565; State ex rel. v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375, 55 S.W. 627; State v. Field, 17 Mo. 529; St. Louis v. Russell, 9 Mo. 507; Spitcaufsky v. Hatten, 182 S.W.2d 86. (3) The court below erred in failing to hold that Section 9427 (j), Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1939, as amended is violative of Article X, Section 3, Missouri Constitution, 1875, in that it levies a tax for public purposes which is not uniform upon the same class of subjects within the state. Cape Girardeau v. Groves Motor Co., 346 Mo. 762, 142 S.W.2d 1040; State ex rel. v. Williams, 232 Mo. 56, 133 S.W. 1; City of Washington v. Washington Oil co., 346 Mo. 1183, 145 S.W.2d 366; State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte, 350 Mo. 271, 165 S.W.2d 632; Hull v Baumann, 345 Mo. 159, 131 S.W.2d 721; Ex parte Asotsky, 319 Mo. 810, 5 S.W.2d 22; State v. Donovan, 218 Minn. 606, 16 N.W.2d 897; S. Buchsbaum & Co. v. Gordon, 389 Ill. 493, 59 N.E.2d 832.

Michael J. Carroll, Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Moseley, Assistant Counsel, for respondents.

(1) Subsection 9427 (j), R.S. 1939, as amended 1943, Laws of 1943, p. 909, divides all employers, who are otherwise subject to the Missouri Unemployment Compensation Law, into three classes or groups for the purpose of determining such employers' unemployment compensation tax rates for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1944, and June 30, 1945. Subsec. 9427 (j), R.S. 1939, as amended 1943, Laws 1943, p. 909. (2) Subsection 9427 (j) is not retrospective in its operation; and, hence, it is not violative of Article II, Section 15, Missouri Constitution of 1875. Stouffer v. Crawford, 248 S.W. 581; State ex rel. Ross v. Gen. Amer. Life Ins. Co., 336 Mo. 829, 85 S.W.2d 68; Jamison v. Zausch, 227 Mo. 406, 126 S.W. 1023, 21 Ann. Cas. 1132; Squaw Creek Drain. Dist. v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S.W. 12; 2 Cooley, Taxation, sec. 514, p. 1145; Murphy v. Limpp, 347 Mo. 249, 147 S.W.2d 420; Subsecs. 9427 (b) and (c), R.S. 1939, as amended. (3) Subsection 9427 (j) delegates no legislative power to the Unemployment Compensation Commission; hence, it is not violative of Article III, Article IV, Section 1, or Article X, Section 1, Missouri Constitution of 1875. Spitcaufsky v. Hatten, 353 Mo. 94, 182 S.W.2d 86; Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Senter, 149 Tenn. 569, 260 S.W. 144; Haeussler Inv. Co. v. Bates, 306 Mo. 392, 267 S.W. 632; State ex rel. Field v. Smith, 329 Mo. 1019, 49 S.W.2d 74; Sec. 9432B, R.S. 1939, as amended 1943. (4) Appellant is not in a position to raise the question of delegated powers which concerns only employers in class two, because it does not fall within this class. Stouffer v. Crawford, 248 S.W. 581; St. Charles v. Union Electric Co. of Missouri, 185 S.W.2d 297; Ballentine v. Nester, 350 Mo. 58, 164 S.W.2d 378; Juengel v. City of Glendale, 161 S.W.2d 408; 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, sec. 94, p. 207. (5) Subsection 9427 (j) does not levy a tax which is not uniform within the same class of subjects within the State; and, hence, it is not violative of Article X, Section 3, Missouri Constitution of 1875. State v. Donovan, 218 Minn. 606, 16 N.W.2d 897; S. Buchsbaum & Co. v. Gordon, 389 Ill. 493, 59 N.E.2d 832, certiorari denied 65 S.Ct. 1411, 89 L.Ed. 1229; Ex parte Asotsky, 319 Mo. 810, 62 A.L.R. 95, 5 S.W.2d 22; State v. Industrial Towel & Dye Works, 4 CCH Unemployment Insurance Service, Minnesota, par. 8125; Celanese Corp. of America v. Davis, 3 CCH Unemployment Insurance Service, Maryland, par. 8078; State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte, 350 Mo. 271, 165 S.W.2d 632; Village of Beverly Hills v. Schulter, 344 Mo. 159, 130 S.W.2d 532; Edmonds v. St. Louis, 348 Mo. 1063, 156 S.W.2d 619; Kellogg v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 349 Mo. 1165, 164 S.W.2d 285; Hull v. Baumann, 345 Mo. 159, 131 S.W.2d 721; State ex rel. v. Williams, 232 Mo. 56, 131 S.W. 1, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1060; Cape Girardeau v. Groves Motor Co., 346 Mo. 762, 142 S.W.2d 1040; City of Washington v. Washington Oil Co., 346 Mo. 1183, 145 S.W.2d 366; Sec. 9422, R.S. 1939, as amended; Subsection 9423 (h), R.S. 1939, as amended; Laws 1943, p. 917. (6) The burden of showing that subsection 9427 (j) is unconstitutional rests upon the appellant, the subsection is presumed to be constitutional unless and until its unconstitutionality has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and any remaining doubt as to the constitutionality must be resolved in favor of the statute's validity. Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo. 574, 85 S.W.2d 543; State v. Kennedy, 343 Mo. 786, 123 S.W.2d 118.

Cobbs, Logan, Roos & Armstrong for Associated Industries of Missouri, amicus curiae.

(1) Subsection 9427 (j), R.S. 1939, as amended 1943, Laws of 1943, p. 909, is not retrospective in its operations and does not, therefore, violate Article II, Section 15, Missouri Constitution of 1875. McManus v. Park, 229 S.W. 211, 287 Mo. 109; Gibson v. Chicago, G.W. Railroad Co., 125 S.W. 453, 225 Mo. 473; Clark v. Kansas City, St. L. & C. Railroad Co., 118 S.W. 40, 219 Mo. 524; Abbott v. Mining Co., 255 Mo. 378, 164 S.W. 563; Squaw Creek Drain. Dist. v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S.W. 12; State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte, 165 S.W.2d 632. (2) Section 9427 (j) does not unlawfully delegate to the Executive Department power properly belonging to the Legislative Department, and does not, therefore, violate Article III, Article IV, or Article X, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution of 1875. State v. Thompson, 160 Mo. 333; Spitcaufsky v. Hatten, 350 Mo. 94, 182 S.W.2d 86; Haessler Inv. Co. v. Bates, 306 Mo. 392, 267 S.W. 632. (3) Section 9427 (j) does not levy a tax for public purposes which is not uniform upon the same class of subjects within the State, and does not, therefore, violate Article X, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution of 1875. Ex parte Asotsky, 5 S.W.2d 22; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Chorn, 201 S.W. 1122; Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 72 L.Ed. 770; People ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 184 N.Y. 431, 77 N.E. 970; Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney v. State Tax Commission of New York, 309 U.S. 530, 84 L.Ed. 909.

OPINION

Hyde, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County on a petition for review, affirming a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Commission; and also an appeal from the judgment of said Court dismissing an action for declaratory judgment in which the invalidity of the Commission's ruling was sought to be established. These two appeals have been consolidated.

The sole question presented is the constitutionality of subsection (j) added to Section 9427, R.S. 1939 in 1943. (Laws 1943, p. 915. For this Section as originally enacted and all subsequent amendments see Section 9427, Mo. Stat. Ann.) This subsection provides for payment of unemployment contributions (by all employers commencing business during or after 1941) at the rate of 3.6 per cent, instead of 2.7 per cent (the beginning rate prior to the amendment), during the period between July 1, 1943 and June 30, 1945. Similar statutes known as war risk contribution acts have been adopted in other states for the purpose of preventing depletion of Unemployment Compensation funds from unemployment after the end of the war. In 1942, plaintiff commenced to operate a factory manufacturing airplane engines for the Navy; and what is actually involved herein is the right of the State of Missouri to collect from plaintiff for its Unemployment Compensation fund the amount representing the difference between contributions at the rate of 3.6% and contributions at the rate of 2.7%. Plaintiff contends that this amendment is retrospective in its operation, in violation of Section 15, Article II, Mo. Const. 1875; that it...