Singer v. State

• Decision Date: 19 June 1890
• Citation: Singer v. State, 72 Md. 464, 19 A. 1044 (Md. 1890)
• Parties: SINGER v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

19 A. 1044

72 Md. 464

SINGER v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 19, 1890

Error to criminal court of Baltimore city.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, BRYAN, FOWLER, BRISCOE MCSHERRY, and ROBINSON, JJ.

John Stewart and David Stewart, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Whyte and Chas. G. Kerr, for the State.

ROBINSON J.

The traverser is a plumber by trade, and was indicted for refusing to comply with the requirements of the act of 1886 c. 439, which provides that no person shall engage in the business of plumbing in the city of Baltimore unless such person shall have received from the state board of commissioners of practical plumbing a certificate as to his competency and qualification. This act the traverser contends is in violation of his constitutional rights under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States and of the constitution of this state, both of which declare that no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. These constitutional safeguards have been so fully considered and discussed by the supreme court, especially since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, by which the restraint upon the power of the states to pass laws affecting personal and private rights was made a part of the federal constitution, that it can only be necessary to refer to the conclusions reached by that court as affecting the question before us. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 9 S.Ct. 231; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S.Ct. 357; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 5 S.Ct. 730; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S.Ct. 992, 1257. No one questions the right of every person in this country to follow any legitimate business or occupation he may see fit. This is a privilege open alike to every one. His own labor, and the right to use it as a means of livelihood, is a right as sacred and as fully protected by the law as any other personal or private right. But broad and comprehensive as this right may be, it is subject to the paramount right, inherent in every government, to impose such restraint and to provide such regulations in regard to the pursuits of life as the public welfare may require. This paramount right rests upon the well-recognized maxim, " salus populi est suprema lex;" and, whatever difficulty there may be in defining the precise limits and boundaries by which the exercise of this power is to be governed, all agree that laws and regulations necessary for the protection of the health, morals, and safety of society are strictly within the legitimate exercise of the police power. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S.Ct. 992, 1257; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273; Railway Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, 9 S.Ct. 207. As to the common and ordinary occupations of life, little or no regulation may be necessary; but if the occupation or calling be of such a character as to require a special course of study or training or experience to qualify one to pursue such occupation or calling with safety to the public interests, no one questions the power of the legislature to impose such restraints, and prescribe such requirements, as it may deem proper for the protection of the public against the evils resulting from...