Robison v. Miner

• Decision Date: 02 March 1888
• Citation: 68 Mich. 549
• Parties: GEORGE F. ROBISON, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF WAYNE COUNTY, v. JOHN MINER AND EDMUND HAUG, POLICE JUSTICES OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

68 Mich. 549

GEORGE F. ROBISON,PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF WAYNE COUNTY, v. JOHN MINER AND EDMUND HAUG,POLICE JUSTICES OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Michigan Supreme Court

JANUARY TERM 1888

March 2, 1888

Constitutional law—Liquor law of 1887—Title of act—Bond of dealer—Authority of municipal board to reject—Right of county treasurer to require new bond—Arrest—Breach of the peace—Penalty—Forfeiture of business.

1. The title to Act No. 318, Laws of 1887, namely, "An act to provide for the taxation and regulation of the business of manufacturing, selling, keeping for sale, furnishing, giving, or delivering spirituous and intoxicating liquors, and malt, brewed, or fermented liquors, and vinous liquors, in this State," covers but one general subject-matter.

2. The following provisions of the liquor law of 1887 are held unconstitutional:

a—Authorizing the approving board to reject a bond if the principal is known to them "to be a person whose character and habits would render him or her an unfit person to conduct the business of selling liquor."

b—Authorizing the county treasurer to require new bonds "in any [other] contingency that he shall determine requires it."

c—Allowing and directing various officers to close places of sale on their own determination of facts, and to arrest parties without process for a breach of the peace.

d—Providing for the forfeiture of business in addition to fine and imprisonment.

3. The new taxes and penalties not involving the peculiar disabilities named are valid, as well as the new method of prosecution in the upper instead of justice's courts, and, except as pointed out, the law may be enforced.¹

Application for mandamus to require respondents to entertain jurisdiction to hold preliminary examinations in criminal prosecutions under the liquor law of 1887. Submitted January 10, 1888. Granted as to Justice Miner, and denied as to Justice Haug, March 2, 1888. The facts are stated in the opinion.

George F. Robison, prosecuting attorney (Edwin F. Conely and C. A. Kent, of counsel), for relator.

Isaac Marston and F. A. Baker, for respondents.

CAMPBELL, J. The object of these two applications, one of which is made against each respondent, is to require them to entertain jurisdiction to hold preliminary examinations in criminal prosecutions under the revision of the liquor laws of 1887. They decline doing so upon the claim that the statute embodying that revision is invalid because, as they insist, it contains unconstitutional provisions, which are so connected with the prosecution clauses of the act that they must stand or fall together. If this defense is made out it will be fatal, and will defeat the application for our intervention. We are therefore required to consider it.

As none of the previous laws on the subject are repealed except by the general clause repealing all inconsistent statutes and parts of statutes, we are saved some discussion that might otherwise be required. The present statute covers the whole ground, and was meant to provide a, full system of legislation to replace the old, and there are no important provisions in the old laws that are not more or less affected by the new one.

The act in question was approved June 28, 1887, subsequent to the act popularly known as the "Local Option Law," which must stand on its own merits as meant to apply by its terms whether the old or new law should be in force. That statute does not seem, therefore, to form any essential feature of this controversy, and we cannot properly consider it on this record.

The statute before us is entitled—

"An act to provide for the taxation and regulation of the business of manufacturing, selling, keeping for sale, furnishing, giving, or delivering spirituous and intoxicating liquors, and malt, brewed, or fermented liquors, and vinous liquors, in this State, and to repeal all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act."

Some question was made whether this title is not multifarious in covering distinct objects. But we see no such necessary difficulty in it. There is but one general purpose indicated by it, and that is to reduce to one system all dealings with liquors of every sort which include such varieties as may intoxicate, and while these varieties may be numerous, and may include some kinds which are not intoxicating, it would be difficult to make a title that would make that specific discrimination without verbosity, or without creating confusion. The regulation of such beverages as in the opinion of the Legislature need regulating has always been regarded as a single branch of policy, and it would not be difficult to make a shorter title which would cover all the ground covered by the title of the act in question. The object is clearly a single one, capable of subdivision in details. It may be possible to include in legislation on that matter provisions that would not fairly come within the title; and of course, under our Constitution, those provisions would have to be rejected. But the title itself is not open to this objection. It covers but one general subject-matter.

The present law combines together, but under new regulations, a number of matters which have been treated heretofore to a considerable extent under different statutes and amendments. It includes the rules of taxation which the Legislature have seen fit to adopt, and new methods of enforcement, and a considerable number of provisions changing the penalties and modes of arrest and trial, imposing various forfeitures not before imposed, transferring the litigation from justices' to the higher courts, giving new power to officers, and in other ways making more stringent and severe regulations running through most of the parts of the law. It is largely in reference to the conditions and the penal methods and consequences that the law is complained of. The chief particulars of the complaints will be referred to.

The tax or license for doing business is considerably increased, and new conditions are imposed on the business. These changes or modifications involve, in regard to druggists violating the law in any way, a fine not less than $100, nor more than $500, or imprisonment not less than 90 days, nor more than a year, or both fine and imprisonment. In case of a second offense the person charged is, in addition to the other punishment, to be debarred from selling in this State any such liquors for five years. The liquors he is allowed to sell are confined to chemical, scientific, medicinal, mechanical, and sacramental purposes.

Other persons are to pay in advance the coming year's tax, ranging from $300 to $800, on payment of which a large and conspicuous printed notice, as well as a receipt, specifying the amount and purpose of the tax paid, and the place and conditions of business and the penalties, etc., of the act are to be furnished. This receipt and notice are to be kept conspicuously posted, so as to be manifest to all comers. A bond also is required to be fixed as presently noted. A failure in any of these particulars involves punishment for misdemeanor to the extent of $200 fine and 90 days' imprisonment, or either, and imprisonment up to six months if the fine is not paid. And it is further provided that any person doing business, who has paid his tax, if—

"Convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of this act, shall thereby, in addition to all other penalties prescribed by this act, forfeit the tax so paid by him or them, and be precluded from continuing such business for the remainder of the year, or time for which said tax was paid, and be debarred from again engaging in any business requiring the payment of a tax under section 1 of this act, or from becoming a surety or sureties upon any bond required under section 7 of this act, for the period of one year from the time of such conviction. Each violation of any of the provisions of this act shall be construed to constitute a separate and complete offense, and for each violation, on the same day or on different days, the person or persons offending shall be liable to the penalties and forfeitures herein provided, and be precluded and debarred from continuing or engaging in any business requiring the payment of a tax under this act as aforesaid. And it shall be the duty of sheriffs, marshals, constables, and police officers to forthwith close all saloons and other places where the business of manufacturing, selling, or keeping for sale any of the liquors mentioned in section 1 of this act is being conducted, upon which business the tax required by said section 1 has not been paid in full, and in which the receipt mentioned in section 5 of this act shall not be posted up and displayed."

It will be observed that by some mistake or otherwise reference is made to section 7 for a bond and to section 5 for a receipt. Those sections contain no such provisions.

Bonds are required of all dealers yearly of not less than $3,000, nor more than $6,000, to secure the public and others from illegal sales. The sureties are to be freeholders of the municipality, holding no office unless that of a notary public, and not sureties on any other bond, who are to justify as owners of sufficient real estate in the county, beyond debts and exemptions. The bond is to be approved by the municipal board or trustees or council upon affidavits. And if, in the judgment of that body, the sureties are inadequate,—

"Or if the principal of said bond is known by said township board, or the board of trustees or common council of the village or city, to be a person whose character and habits would render him or her an unfit person to conduct the business of selling liquor, they, the said township board or board of trustees, the council or common council of the village or city, as the case may be, shall refuse to indorse said bond with their approval."

A new bond shall be required by the county treasurer in case of the death, insolvency, or removal of either of the sureties, "and in any...