Schultz v. Parker

• Decision Date: 13 December 1912
• Citation: 139 N.W. 173,158 Iowa 42
• Parties: H. F. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C. J. PARKER, Sheriff, Appellee
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

139 N.W. 173

158 Iowa 42

H. F. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C. J. PARKER, Sheriff, Appellee

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 13, 1912

Appeal from Sac District Court.--HON. Z. A. CHURCH, Judge

THIS is a habeas corpus proceeding. The petition was filed and the writ obtained in October, 1907. It was brought against the defendant as sheriff, who held the plaintiff under arrest for violation of the provisions of chapter 112, Laws 32d General Assembly. The plaintiff challenged the validity of such legislative enactment, and therefore the validity of his arrest. Upon issues properly joined the trial was had. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the plaintiff has appealed.

Affirmed.

Kenyon Kelleher & O'Connor and B. I. Salinger, for appellant.

H. W Byers, Attorney General; A. L. Whitney, County Attorney, and Chas. S. Wilcox, for appellee.

OPINION

EVANS, J.

The case was tried below upon an agreed statement of facts. The issues were so framed and the facts so stated as to enable the plaintiff to challenge the constitutionality of the anti-pass law, being chapter 112 of the Laws 32d General Assembly. This chapter now appears in the Code Supplement as sections 2157-f, 2157-g, 2157-h, 2157-i, and 2157-j.

For convenience of reference, we quote section 1 and a portion of section 2 thereof, as follows:

Section 1. No common carrier of passengers shall, directly or indirectly, issue, furnish or give any free ticket, free pass or free transportation for the carriage or passage of any person within this state except as permitted in the second section hereof. Nor shall any common carrier, in the sale of tickets for transportation at reduced rates, discriminate between persons purchasing the same, except the persons described in said sections. Nor shall any person accept or use any free ticket, free pass or free transportation except the persons described in said section. The words 'free ticket,' 'free pass,' 'free transportation' as used in this act shall include any ticket, pass, contract, permit or transportation issued, furnished or given to any person, by any common carrier of passengers, for carriage or passage for any other consideration than money paid in the usual way at the rate, fare or charge open to all who desire to purchase.

Sec. 2. The persons to whom free tickets, free passes, free transportation and discriminating reduced rates may be issued, furnished, or given are the following, to-wit: (a) the officers, agents, employees, attorneys, physicians, and surgeons, of such common carriers of passengers whose chief and principal occupation is to render service to common carriers of passengers.

This law went into effect on July 4, 1907. It is agreed that on July 9, 1907, the plaintiff received from the Illinois Central Railroad Company an annual pass good on all lines of the railroad within and without the state of Iowa. This pass was issued in pursuance of a contract entered into on the same date whereby the plaintiff as an attorney at law, residing at Storm Lake, Iowa agreed to act as "local attorney" for such company, and to perform certain usual services for the railroad company pertaining to litigation then existing, or which might thereafter arise, in Buena Vista county. Such contemplated services were occasional and casual rather than usual or general, and might be much or little according to the contingencies of the future. The annual pass in question was to be received in full compensation for such prospective services. It is agreed, also, that the agreement for the services of plaintiff did not contemplate that he should become an attorney for the railroad company within the meaning of section 2 of the act above set forth, and that the plaintiff was not within the excepted class therein specified. The plaintiff traveled upon said pass from point to point within the state of Iowa upon the lines of the railroad company upon business which was not in furtherance of any interest of the railroad company or in pursuance of its employment; and he paid no transportation therefor except the presentation of such pass.

In his petition for the writ, the plaintiff challenged the validity of the act referred to as being violative of the Constitution of the United States in the following respects:. (1) The said act deprives the defendant of the right to make a contract in a lawful way, and for a lawful purpose. (2) It is class legislation, and not equal or uniform in its provisions. (3) It deprives the defendant of the equal protection of the laws. (4) It abridges the privileges and immunities of the defendant as a citizen of the United States. (5) It deprives the defendant of his property and liberty without due process of the law. (6) It is repugnant to and inconsistent with section 1 of the act of Congress to regulate commerce approved February 4, 1887, as amended by the act approved June 29, 1906. (7) It is repugnant to and inconsistent with section 22 of the act of Congress to regulate commerce, approved February 4, 1887, as amended March 2, 1889, and February 8, 1895, and as amended June 29, 1906. (8) It is repugnant to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (9) It is repugnant to the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (10) It is repugnant to section 2, art. 4, of the Constitution of the United States. (11) It is repugnant to section 8 of article 1, which provides that Congress shall have power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with Indian tribes."

He also challenged the same as violative of the Constitution of Iowa in the following respects: (1) It deprives the defendant of the right to make a lawful contract in a lawful way for a lawful purpose. (2) It is class legislation, and not equal or uniform in its provisions. (3) It deprives the defendant of the equal protection of the laws. (4) It abridges the privileges and immunities of the defendant as a citizen of the United States. (5) It deprives him of his property and liberty without due process of the law. (6) It is repugnant to section 1, art. 1, of the Bill of Rights as found in the Constitution of the state of Iowa. (7) It is repugnant to and in violation of section 6 of article 1 of the Constitution of the state of Iowa. (8) It is repugnant to and in violation of section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution of the state of Iowa. (9) The said act is in violation of and repugnant to section 29 of article 3 of the Constitution of the state of Iowa which provides: Every act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith; which subject shall be expressed in the title.

The plaintiff has filed here a brief presenting scores of points and hundreds of authorities. We shall not be able to consider them all in detail within the limits at our command. The brief, however, presents a succinct resume of the substance of the points especially emphasized, and we avail ourselves of it as presenting his general line of argument as follows:

Part 1. There is a vital difference between a 'free pass' and one obtained for valuable consideration other than money. While the Iowa act directs the Iowa Legislature to ignore the distinction, it prohibits nothing but 'free' transportation; and Schulz has no such transportation. And by reason of this distinction the title of the act is fatally defective, because it advised that it is a prohibition of free passes, without indicating that the term is made to include such as are not free.

Part 2. A statute which, in effect, declares it to be a crime for a railroad carrier to pay wages except in money, or its employee to accept wages unless paid in money, which compels self-incrimination and puts the burden on the accused to prove himself innocent, and which makes criminality depend upon whether the pass holder has it for his main and chief occupation to give services to some common carrier or carriers of passengers, and which permits passes to some who are and some who are not employees of such corporations, though they do not meet such occupation test, is void for being in conflict with both the federal and state Constitutions, and with elementary natural justice, because (a) it denies due process of law and the equal protection of the laws; (b) it does this by arbitrarily interfering with the right to make contracts; (c) by enacting arbitrary and oppressive class legislation; (d) by compelling the accused to incriminate himself, and especially by putting on him the burden of proving himself innocent, it takes from him elementary rights inherent in the social compact, in natural justice, trial in accord with common law, and rights that existed before the United States adopted a Constitution; (e) punishing one for disobeying a definition forced by the Legislature upon the courts is not due process because, in effect, it tries the accused before the Legislature without any of the sanctioned forms of procedure and without notice and hearing.

Part 3. At all events, this statute is an invasion of the province of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, because, Congress having declared what passes such common carriers may issue, the state may neither conflict with nor complement that declaration.

Part 4. The unconstitutional parts so manifestly induced the passage of the act that it is void in toto.

I. It is the first contention of plaintiff in argument that his pass was not a "free pass;" that the prohibition of the statute applies only to a "free pass," and not to a pass supported by any consideration. He argues therefore, that his use of the pass in the manner heretofore indicated was not a violation of the statute. He urges that the last sentence of section 1 which purports to define ...