Shenandoah Lime Co v. Governor

Decision Date15 January 1913
PartiesSHENANDOAH LIME CO. et al. v. MANN, Governor, et al.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

1. Statutes (§ 181*)—Construction—Intent.

A purpose or intent contrary to that clearly indicated by an act cannot be attributed to the Legislature in passing it.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 259, 263; Dec. Dig. § 181.*]

2. States (§ 119*)"Internal Improvement."

Machinery for grinding oyster shells and limestone, and temporary structures for such work and for housing convicts pending it, provided for by Convict Lime Grinding Act (Acts 1912, c. 295), relative to employment by the state of certain classes of convicts in such grinding, are not internal improvements, within Const. 1902, § 1S5 (Code 1904, p. cclxix), prohibiting the state becoming a party to or interested in "any work of internal improvement, " except public roads.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see States, Cent. Dig. § 118; Dec. Dig. § 119.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 4, pp. 3717-3720.]

3. Convicts (§ 7*) — Employment — Police Power.

Convict Lime Grinding Act (Acts 1912, c. 295), providing for employment by the state, in grinding oyster shells and limestone, of convicts who cannot be used in the usual employments, is a valid exercise by the state of its police power.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, sec Convicts, Dec. Dig. § 7.*]

4. States (§ 119*)—Appropriations for Private Purpose.

Convict Lime Grinding Act (Acts 1912, c. 295), relative to employment by the state of certain classes of convicts in grinding oyster shells and limestone, does not, by its appropriation to carry the act into effect, appropriate public funds for a private purpose, in contravention of Const. 1902, § 188 (Code 1904, p. cclxx); the purpose of the act, to furnish employment to convicts, being a public one.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see States, Cent. Dig. § 118; Dec. Dig. § 119.*]

5. Constitutional Law (§ 278*)—Convicts (§ 7*)—Due Process—Selling Products of Convict Labor.

Convict Lime Grinding Act (Acts 1912, c 295), providing for employment of certain classes of convicts in grinding oyster shells and limestone, does not by any injury to private manufacturers, from its incidental provisions for sale of the product of the work, take their property without due process, contrary to Const. U. S. Amend. 14.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 763, 765, 767-770, 772-777, 779-S06, 808-810. 816-824, 907-924, 942; Dec. Dig. § 278;* Convicts, Dec. Dig. §7.*]

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of Richmond.

Suit by the Shenandoah Lime Company and others against William Hodges Mann, Governor of Virginia, and others, for injunction. Bill dismissed, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Braxton & Eggleston and R. E. Byrd, all of Richmond, for appellants.

A. E. Strode, of Amherst, Coke & Pickrell and C. V. Meredith, all of Richmond, and Wm. H. Mann, Jr., Atty. Gen., for appellees.

HARRISON, J. This appeal involves the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, known as the "Convict Lime Grinding Act, " which was approved March 14, 1912, and is found in chapter 295 of the Acts of 1912, p. 586.

In approaching this question, it is unnecessary to do more than cite the latest utterance of this court touching the principles by which it is governed in considering the constitutionality of a law which is found in Ex parte Settle, 114 Va. 715, 77 S. E. 496, where it is said: "The principles by which this court is governed in considering the constitutionality of a law have been too frequently the subject of judicial decision to require the citation of authority. Every presumption is made in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature. A reasonable doubt as to its constitutionality must be solved in favor of the validity of the law, and the courts have nothing to do with the question whether or not the legislation is wise and proper, as the Legislature has plenary power, except where the Constitution of the state, or of the United States, forbids, and it is only in cases where the statute in question Is plainly repugnant to some provision of the Constitution that the courts can declare it to be null and void."

The bill in this case was filed by a number of Virginia corporations and firms, engaged in the business of manufacturing agricultural lime, suing on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers of the commonwealth, to enjoin the Governor of Virginia, the Superintendent of the Penitentiary, and the Commissioner of Agriculture, who constitute the board appointed by the act mentioned, and the Auditor of Public Accounts and the State Treasurer, from carrying out the provisions of the act or expending any state funds to that end. From a decree of the circuit court dissolving a preliminary injunction that had been awarded and dismissing the complainants' bill, this appeal has been taken.

In their bill of complaint and in their pe-tition for an appeal, appellants assail this Convict Lime Grinding Act upon the ground that it violates section 185 of the Virginia Constitution (Code 1904, p. cclxix), which forbids the state from becoming a party to or interested in any work of internal improvement, except public roads, or engaged in carrying on such work; it being further insisted that, if this position is not sustained, the act is obnoxious to section 188 of the Constitution (Code 1904, p. cclxx) because it appropriates public funds for a private purpose or business, and because it amounts to the taking of the property of the appellants without due process of law, contrary to the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution.

The title of the act under consideration is "An act to provide for the working of certain long term or desperate convicts by the Superintendent of the Penitentiary, the Governor and the Commissioner of Agriculture, for the manufacture of ground limestone and oyster shells, and incidentally for the disposition of the same, and the by-products suitable for road construction, to the citizens of the state."

The preamble of the act is as follows: "Whereas, it is the policy of the state to work as many of the convicts confined in the penitentiary as possible for the building and maintenance of roads, and when on account of character or disposition it shall be expedient so to work them, to provide suitable employment in quarries, where they can be guarded and their product sold."

The body of the act carries out the purpose expressed in its title and preamble. It directs that the convicts be put to work grinding oyster shells and limestone rock, provides the material upon which they are to work and the instrumentalities with which they are to do the work, and further provides for the sale of the product of their labor and for their support and keep from the proceeds. The act appropriates $30,000 for the purpose of carrying its objects into effect, and provides that the ground limestone and oyster shells shall be sold for cash and at a price which shall repay the state for the maintenance, guarding, and service of the convicts, for interest on the amount invested in machinery, the upkeep of the machinery, the cost of the rock and shells, etc., and further provides that the board appointed by the act shall dispose of any by-product of the quarry or oyster shells for road or other purposes to any of the citizens of this state for a fair price, and other details not necessary to be mentioned.

It is apparent from the title, preamble, and the body of this act that its dominant purpose is to provide suitable employment for certain long-term or dangerous convicts confined in the penitentiary, and that the other provisions of the act are merely tributary to that end. This is practically conceded in clause 7 of appellants' original bill of complaint. Appellants, however, do not rest their case alone upon the act as it was actually passed, but insist that the Governor's message, the entries on the House Journal, and the original draft of the act contradict the avowed purpose of the act as passed, and show that the real motive of the Legislature was to embark the state in private business in competition with appellants and other private manufacturers, so as to enable it to furnish cheap ground lime to farmers at the expense of the public treasury.

Without expressing any opinion upon the merits of the contention that the matters relied on outside of the act show a different intention from that expressed on the face of the law that was enacted, it is sufficient to say that the motives, purposes, or intentions of the Legislature have no existence in law where its enactment is plain and unambiguous on its face, except as those motives may be disclosed on the face of the act itself. It is only where the true meaning of the language used in a statute is doubtful or so obscure that the meaning of the Legislature cannot be determined by giving the words used their ordinary and natural signification that resort can be had to the journals or other extraneous sources of information for aid in arriving at the true meaning of the language used in the statute.

In 36 Cyc. pp. 1137, 1138, the law is thus stated: "The intention of the Legislature, to which effect must be given, is that expressed in the statute, and the courts will not inquire into the motives which influenced the Legislature or individual members, in voting for its passage, nor indeed as to the intention of the draftsman, or of the Legislature, so far...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Norfolk Bus. Dist. v. HUD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • June 12, 1996
    ...works of a like quasi-public character," Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 764, 771, 107 S.E.2d 594 (1959) (quoting Shenandoah Lime Co. v. Mann, 115 Va. 865, 871-72, 80 S.E. 753 (1913)), none of which is implicated here. The Virginia Supreme Court has also specifically held that a retail market is n......
  • Graves v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 12, 2017
    ..."[t]he history of legislative dealings" is "interesting but has no value except in doubtful cases"); Shenandoah Lime Co. v. Governor of Va. , 115 Va. 865, 870, 80 S.E. 753, 754 (1914) ("[T]he motives, purposes or intention of the legislature have no existence in law where its enactment is p......
  • Reynolds v. Milk Comm'n Of Va.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1935
    ...Bell, 143 Va. 310, 130 S. E. 516, 51 A. L. R. 855; Strawberry Hill Land Corp. v. Starbuck, 124 Va. 71, 97 S. E. 362; Shenandoah Lime Co. v. Governor of Virginia, 115 Va. 865, SO S. E. 753, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 973. Before private business can be regulated it must be affected with some public in......
  • Reynolds v. Milk Commission
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1935
    ...Bell, 143 Va. 310, 130 S.E. 516, 51 A.L.R. 855; Strawberry Hill Land Corp. Starbuck, 124 Va. 71, 97 S.E. 362; Shenandoah Lime Co. Governor of Virginia, 115 Va. 865, 80 S.E. 753, Ann. Cas. 1915C, Before private business can be regulated it must be affected with some public interest. Chief Ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT