State ex rel. Blaisdell v. Billings
| Decision Date | 25 January 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8373 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota ex rel. E. H. Blaisdell v. John S. Billings, Sheriff |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued by relator, submitted on brief by appellant January 17, 1894.
Original Opinion of December 13, 1893, Reported at: 55 Minn. 467.
Upon reargument, January 17, 1894. At the former hearing of this case the attention of the court was not called to the fact that the provisions of the Probate Code relating to the commitment of insane persons to the state hospitals had been wholly superseded by certain sections of Laws 1893, ch. 5. Assuming that the provisions of the Probate Code on this subject were still in force, the court fell into the error of holding that the law had not been complied with, that there had been a complete departure from the requirements of the statute, and that the warrant under which Mrs. Blaisdell had been committed was on its face wholly void, and without jurisdiction. The inevitable result was the granting of respondent's petition for a rehearing. A question new to the case, and of the greatest importance, has now been raised by counsel for relator namely, the constitutionality of those provisions in Laws 1893, ch. 5, which prescribe the course of procedure, and authorize the commitment of persons to public and to private hospitals for the insane. It is urged that these provisions violate the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution and are in conflict with a similar article in our State constitution, forbidding that any person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We have therefore to examine the provisions of the statute of 1893 in the light of adjudications as to what is, and what constitutes, "due process of law," in order to discover and determine whether constitutional rights have been encroached upon and invaded by means of this legislative enactment.
The first inquiry is as to what is "due process of law." In Bardwell v. Collins, 44 Minn 97, (46 N.W. 315,) it was said that no complete or exhaustive definition of the term had ever been attempted by the courts, because it was incapable of any such definition. All that could be done was to lay down certain general principles, and apply them to the facts of each case as they arise. Mr. Webster's exposition of the words, "law of the land," and "due process of law," viz.: "The general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial," -- was quoted; and then the court went on to say that, in judicial proceedings, "due process of law" requires notice, hearing, and judgment. These words, said the court, do not mean anything which the legislature may see fit to declare to be "due process of law," for there are certain fundamental rights which our system of jurisprudence has always recognized, which not even the legislature can disregard, in proceedings by which a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property, and one of these is "notice before judgment in all judicial proceedings." In commenting upon the difficulty of defining these words, it has been said that it is wisdom to leave the meaning to be evolved by the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion, as the case presented for decision shall require. Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 616. But it may be stated generally that due process of law requires that a party shall be properly brought into court, and that he shall have an opportunity, when there, to prove any fact which, according to the constitution and the usages of the common law, would be a protection to him or to his property. People v. Board of Supervisors, 70 N.Y. 228. Due process of law requires an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case, in which the citizen has an opportunity to be heard, and to defend, enforce, and protect his rights. A hearing, or an opportunity to be heard, is absolutely essential. "Due process of law" without these conditions cannot be conceived. Stewart v. Palmer, 74 N.Y. 183.
It follows that any method of procedure which a legislature may, in the uncontrolled exercise of its power, see fit to enact, having for its purpose the deprivation of a person of his life, liberty, or property, is in no sense the process of law designated and imperatively required by the constitution. And while the state should take charge of such unfortunates as are dangerous to themselves and to others, not only for the safety of the public, but for their own amelioration, due regard must be had to the forms of law and to personal rights. To the person charged with being insane to a degree requiring the interposition of the authorities and the restraint provided for, there must be given notice of the proceeding, and also an opportunity to be heard in the tribunal which is to pass judgment upon his right to his personal liberty in the future. There must be a trial before judgment can be pronounced, and there can be no proper trial unless there is guarantied the right to produce witnesses and to submit evidence. The question here is not whether the tribunal may proceed in due form of law, and with some regard to the rights of the person before it, but, rather, is the right to have it so proceed absolutely secured? Any statute having for its object the deprivation of the liberty of a person cannot be upheld unless this right is secured, for the object may be attained in defiance of the constitution, and without due process of law.
Let us now turn to the statute in question. It must be observed at the outset that private, as well as public, hospitals are within its terms, and for this reason, if for no other, the rights of the citizen should be closely guarded. Laws 1893 ch. 5, § 17, requires that every person committed to custody as insane must be so committed in the manner thereafter prescribed. Section 19 provides that whenever the Probate Judge, or, in his absence, the court commissioner, shall receive information in writing (the form being given) that there is an insane person in his county needing care and...
To continue reading
Request your trial