State ex rel. Chapel v. Justus

• Decision Date: 13 November 1903
• Docket Number: Nos. 13,773-(213).,s. 13,773-(213).
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PAUL CHAPEL v. PHILIP C. JUSTUS.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 474

90 Minn. 474

STATE ex rel. PAUL CHAPEL v. PHILIP C. JUSTUS.¹

Nos. 13,773-(213).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 13, 1903.

Appeal by relator from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kelly, J., vacating a writ of habeas corpus. Reversed, and prisoner ordered discharged.

Thomas McDermott, for appellant.

T. R. Kane, County Attorney, and O. H. O'Neill, for respondent.

LEWIS, J.

Relator was arrested at the city of St. Paul for a violation of chapter 356, p. 575, Laws 1901, for unlawfully engaging in work as a journeyman plumber without having first received a certificate of competency from the state board of commissioners. The matter having been brought on before the district court in Ramsey county upon a writ of habeas corpus, the writ was vacated, and relator appealed.

Section 1, c. 356, p. 575, Laws 1901, reads as follows:

"That it shall not be lawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation engaged in the plumbing business in any city or town with a population of ten thousand (10,000) or more, which has a system of sewer or waterworks, in the state of Minnesota, to employ as journeymen plumbers in said business any person or persons, except those qualified to work as registered plumbers; and it shall not be lawful for any person to work as a plumber in any such city or town for a fee or other reward paid either to himself or to another person for such work, or to act as plumbing inspector in any such city or town, unless such person has first made application to and has received from the state board of commissioners of practical plumbing, a certificate of competency and has complied with the provisions of this act; and has also complied with such ordinance or ordinances as may be in force in any city or town, relating to or governing the performance of plumbing and sanitary work. Provided, nothing in this act contained shall be construed as preventing or prohibiting any person from serving a regular apprenticeship for the purpose of learning the plumbing trade, under employment therefor by any person regularly engaged in the plumbing business, who has complied with the provisions of this act."

The act also declares that a violation of its terms shall be deemed a misdemeanor, subjecting the violator to fine or imprisonment, and further provides for a state board of plumbing commissioners, whose duty it is to examine applicants and issue certificates or licenses.

The only question involved is the constitutionality of the act. The subject-matter of the act, viz., the regulation and control of the business of plumbing, is properly a subject of police regulation, within principles discussed and applied in State v. Zeno, 79 Minn. 80, 81 N. W. 748. In Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445, 80 N. W. 623, it was held that the amendment of 1899 (Laws 1899, p. vi) authorizes the Legislature to classify cities on the basis of population for the purposes of general legislation, without regard to the relation of such basis to the subject-matter of the legislative...