Smith v. State of Texas

• Decision Date: 11 May 1914
• Docket Number: No. 268,268
• Citation: 34 S.Ct. 681,58 L.Ed. 1129,233 U.S. 630
• Parties: W. W. SMITH, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF TEXAS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

233 U.S. 630

34 S.Ct. 681

58 L.Ed. 1129

W. W. SMITH, Plff. in Err.,

v STATE OF TEXAS.

No. 268.

Argued and submitted March 12, 1914.

Decided May 11, 1914.

Messrs. Gardiner Lathrop and Robert Dunlap for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 631 intentionally omitted] Mr. B. F. Looney Attorney General of Texas, and Mr. Luther Nickels for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 632-634 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:

W. W. Smith, the plaintiff in error, a man forty-seven years of age, had spent twenty-one years in the railroad business. He had never been a brakeman or a conductor, but for six years he served as fireman, for three years ran as extra engineer on a freight train, for eight years was engineer on a mixed train, hauling freight and passengers, and for four years had been engineer on a passenger train of the Texas & Gulf Railway. On July 22, 1910, he acted as conductor of a freight train running between two Texas towns on that road. There is no claim in the brief for the state that he was not competent to perform the duties of that position. On the contrary, it affirmatively and without contradiction appeared that the plaintiff in error, like other locomotive engineers, was familiar with the duties of that position, and was competent to discharge them with skill and efficiency. He was, however, found guilty of the offense of violating the Texas statute which makes it unlawful for any person to act as conductor of a freight train without having

Sec. 2. If any person shall act or engage to act as a conductor on a railroad train in this state without having for two (2) years prior thereto served or worked in the capacity of a brakeman or conductor on a freight train on a line of railroad, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500, and each day he so engages shall constitute a separate offense.

Sec. 3. If any person shall knowingly engage, promote, require, persuade, prevail upon, or cause any person to do any act in violation of the provisions of the two preceding sections of this act, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500, and each day he so engages shall constitute a separate offense. [Tex. Laws 1909, chap. 46.] previously served for two years as conductor or brakeman on such trains. On that verdict he was sentenced to pay a fine, and the judgment having been affirmed, the case is here on a record in which he contends that the statute under which he was convicted violated the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

1. Life, liberty, property, and the equal protection of the law, grouped together in the Constitution, are so related that the deprivation of any one of those separate and independent rights may lessen or extinguish the value of the other three. In so far as a man is deprived of the right to labor, his liberty is restricted, his capacity to earn wages and acquire property is lessened, and he is denied the protection which the law affords those who are permitted to work. Liberty means more than freedom from servitude, and the constitutional guaranty is an assurance that the citizen shall be protected in the right to use his powers of mind and body in any lawful calling.

If the service is public, the state may prescribe qualifications and require an examination to test the fitness of any person to engage in or remain in the public calling. Re Lockwood, 154 U. S. 116, 38 L. ed. 929, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1082; Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189, 42 L. ed. 1002, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573; Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173, 54 L. ed. 987, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644. The private employer may likewise fix standards and tests, but, if his business is one in which the public health or safety is concerned, the state may legislate so as to exclude from work in such private calling those whose incompetence might cause injury to the public. But, as the public interest is the basis of such legislation, the tests and prohibition should be enacted with reference to that object, and so as not unduly to 'interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations.' Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 137, 38 L. ed. 388, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499.

A discussion of legislation of this nature is found in Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 98, 32 L. ed. 353, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 238, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28, where this court sustained the validity of a statute which required all locomotive engineers to submit to an examination for color blindness, and then provided that those unable to distinguish signals should not act as engineers on railroad trains. That statute did not prevent any competent person from being employed, but operated merely to exclude those who, on examination, were found to be physically unfit for the discharge of a duty where defective eyesight was almost certain to cause loss of life or limb. Another case cited by the plaintiff in error is that of Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 32 L. ed. 623, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 231. The act there under review provided that no one except licensed physicians should be allowed to practise medicine, and declared that licenses should be issued by the state board of health only to those (1) who were graduates of a reputable medical college; (2) to those who had practised medicine continuously for ten years; or (3) to those who, after examination, were found qualified to practice. Ten years' experience was accepted as proof of fitness, but such experience was not made the sole test, since the privilege of practising was attainable by all others who, by producing a diploma or by standing an examination, could show that they were qualified for the performance of the duties of the profession. In answer to the contention that the act was void because it deprived the citizen of the liberty to contract and the right to labor, the court said no objection could be raised to the statutory requirements 'because of their stringency or difficulty. It is only when they have no relation to such calling or profession, or are unattainable by such reasonable study and application, that they can operate to deprive one of his right to pursue a lawful vocation.'

The necessity of avoiding the fixing of arbitrary tests by which competent persons would be excluded from lawful employment is also recognized in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 480, 31 L. ed. 508, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564. There the act provided that all engineers should secure a license, and in sustaining the validity of the statute the court pointed out that the law 'requires that every locomotive engineer shall have a license,...