State ex rel. Beek v. Wagener
| Decision Date | 26 October 1899 |
| Docket Number | 11,734 - (14) |
| Citation | 80 N.W. 633,77 Minn. 483 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. JOSEPH H. BEEK v. JOHN WAGENER [1] |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Petition on Rehearing Filed November 10, 1899
Writ of habeas corpus issued by the supreme court to respondent sheriff of Ramsey county commanding him to have the body of James B. Redpath before said court, together with the cause of his imprisonment or detention. Respondent justified under a warrant of arrest issued by the municipal court of St Paul, on complaint of W. B. Douglas, charging said Redpath with having on June 17, 1899, at St. Paul, wrongfully and unlawfully engaged as a commission merchant in the business of receiving consignments of agricultural products, farm produce and fruits, to be sold by him on commission and for account of the consignors, and charging the receipt and sale of certain fruit by said Redpath, as such commission merchant. Writ discharged.
Laws 1899, c. 225, Constitutional.
Laws 1899, c. 225, "An act to license and regulate and define business of commission merchants or persons selling agricultural products and farm produce on commission," etc., held constitutional. It is not in conflict with the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution. Nor does it conflict with any of the provisions of section 8 of article 1 of said constitution. Nor are any of its provisions in conflict with sections 2 or 7 of article 1 of the state constitution. Nor is it unconstitutional on the ground that legislative powers have therein been delegated to the railroad and warehouse commission of this state.
Laws 1899, c. 225, Constitutional -- Sale of Farm Products on Commission.
The peculiar characteristics of agricultural products and farm produce, and the liability to peculiar abuses resulting from a sale thereof on commission, are such as to suggest the practical necessity for distinctive legislation on the subject, different from what would be expedient or necessary in the case of other property sold on commission, and to justify the legislature, in its discretion, in putting those who sell them on commission in a class by themselves.
Laws 1899, c. 225, Constitutional -- Section 3 of Act.
Whether section 3 of said chapter is in conflict with certain provisions of the fourth or the fifth amendments to the federal constitution, or in conflict with provisions found in sections 7 and 10 of article 1 of the state constitution, is not decided, because the questions are not involved herein.
Palmer & Beek, for relator Beek.
Laws 1899, c. 225, conflicts with Const. (U.S.) amend. 14, § 1, and with Const. (Minn.) art. 1, § 2, in that it abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. It conflicts with said fourteenth amendment and with Const. (Minn.) art. 1, § 7, in that it deprives certain persons of liberty and property without due process of law. It conflicts with said fourteenth amendment and with Const. (Minn.) art. 1, § 2, in that it denies to certain persons within the jurisdiction of the state the equal protection of the laws.
The act conflicts with Const. (U.S.) amend. 4, and Const. (Minn.) art. 1, § 10, in that it deprives certain persons of their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; and with Const. (U.S.) amend. 5, and with Const. (Minn.) art. 1, § 7, in that it compels certain persons in criminal cases to be witnesses against themselves. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616; Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547; Bram v. U.S., 168 U.S. 532.
The act conflicts with Const. (U.S.) art. 1, § 8, in that it interferes with and attempts to regulate commerce between the state of Minnesota and other states. State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74; Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York, 92 U.S. 259; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100; In re Minor, 69 F. 233.
The act exceeds the power conferred by the state constitution, in that it attempts to delegate powers vested solely and exclusively in the legislative body. In re Wilson, 32 Minn. 145, 146; State v. Mayor of the City of St. Paul, 34 Minn. 250; Minneapolis Gas L. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 36 Minn. 159; County Commrs. of Hennepin Co. v. Robinson, 16 Minn. 340 (381); Darling v. City of St. Paul, 19 Minn. 336 (389); State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474; State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 281; Anderson v. Manchester F. Assur. Co., 59 Minn. 182; O'Neil v. American, 166 Pa. St. 72; Owensboro v. Todd, 91 Ky. 175; Ex parte Cox, 63 Cal. 21; Maxwell v. State, 40 Md. 273, 274; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356. See also 1 Kent, Com. 446; Rice v. Foster, 4 Harrington (Del.) 479; Parker v. Com., 6 Pa. St. 507, 511.
Wilson & Van Derlip, for relator Mohler.
The act is not a tax law. State v. Conlon, 65 Conn. 478. If it were, it would conflict with Const. art. 9, § 1. Kansas v. Grush, 151 Mo. 128. It was intended to be a regulation of business in the exercise of the police power. The police power of the state has the right to protect the general welfare by subordinating to it the rights of the individual in respect to person and property. 2 Kent, Com. 340; New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. St. Tammany Water-Works Co., 4 Woods, 134; Stockton Laundry Case, 26 F. 611; New Orleans v. Hart, 40 La. An. 474; State v. Noyes, 47 Me. 189, 211; Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53; People v. Jackson, 9 Mich. 284; Thorpe v. Rutland, 27 Vt. 140; Marmet v. State, 45 Oh. St. 63; State v. Gardner, 58 Oh. St. 599; State v. Searcy, 20 Mo. 489; Town v. Rose Hill, 70 Ill. 191; Board v. Willamette, 6 Or. 219; Van Hook v. City, 70 Ala. 361; Justice v. Com., 81 Va. 209; In re Ah Fong, 3 Sawy. 144; Philadelphia v. Bowers, 4 Houst. (Del.) 506; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113; Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623; Budd v. New York, 143 U.S. 517; New York & N.E.R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U.S. 556; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; People v. Budd, 117 N.Y. 1; Chicago v. City, 97 Wis. 418; State v. Goodwill, 33 W.Va. 179; Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 112; State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 381; State v. Wagener, 69 Minn. 206.
No law falls properly within the police power which does not have for its object the advancement of the public interest, the protection of a common public right, or does not operate on some public function or on property invested with a public interest. New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. St. Tammany Water-Works Co., supra; People v. Warden, 157 N.Y. 116; State v. Goodwill, supra; State v. Scougal, 3 S.D. 55; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627; New Orleans G.L. Co. v. Louisiana L. Co., 115 U.S. 650; Ex parte Whitwell, 98 Cal. 73; Smiley v. MacDonald, 42 Neb. 5; Lawton v. Steele, 119 N.Y. 226; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578; Cooley, Const. Lim. 710; State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74; Potter's Dwarris, St. 458; San Antonio v. Wilson (Tex. App.) 19 S.W. 912; People v. Budd, supra; Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171, note, 142 Ill. 387. As to what constitutes a public interest, see Cooley, Const. Lim. 736; Zanesville v. Gas-Light, 47 Oh. St. 1; State v. Scougal, supra; Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294; State v. Goodwill, supra; People v. Budd, supra; Munn v. Illinois, supra; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307; San Antonio v. Wilson, supra. It is the duty of the courts to declare any statute invalid which attempts to go farther than to legislate for the welfare of the public. State v. Donaldson, supra; People v. Warden, supra; Ex parte Whitwell, supra; Mugler v. Kansas, supra; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299.
The act contains no element of a public character, but is exclusively a private act for the benefit of consignors who entrust agricultural products or farm produce on commission for sale. It is the duty of the courts to go beneath the surface, and to get at the real purpose of an act, in order to pass on its validity. Morgan's Steamship Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U.S. 455; People v. Warden, supra; Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264. The dictum of the legislature cannot invest a business with a public interest. Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 496, 505; Coe v. Schultz, 47 Barb. 64; Lawton v. Steele, supra. The right to require a license exists only to promote the welfare of the community. Tiedeman, Lim. 301; State v. Conlon, supra; Cooley, Torts (2d Ed.) 328. Statutes which have attempted to regulate payment of wages have almost uniformly been held void, in that they trench on the right of individuals to contract. Frorer v. People, supra; Braceville v. People, 147 Ill. 66; Ex parte Kuback, 85 Cal. 274; State v. Goodwill, supra. The state may not under pretense of a police regulation impose a trammel on constitutional rights. State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163; Stockton Laundry Case, 26 F. 611. It is not enough to warrant legislative interference that employers in a particular business oppress their employees. State v. Loomis, supra.
The act is in violation of the state and federal constitutions. If the act interferes with the natural and inalienable rights of citizens as guarantied by the general purpose and spirit of the constitution, it is void. Com. v. Perry, 155 Mass. 177; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353; Low v Rees, 41 Neb. 127; Gulf, C. & St. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 159. The rights to labor, to contract, and to engage in lawful business, when not harmful to the community, are essential attributes of free citizenship under the state and federal constitutions; and the legislature may not abridge or deny the exercise of these rights, save for the protection of the public from the infliction of common injury;...
To continue reading
Request your trial