State v. Arthur N. Auclair

Citation4 A.2d 107,110 Vt. 147
PartiesSTATE v. ARTHUR N. AUCLAIR
Decision Date03 January 1939
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

Special Term at Rutland, November, 1938.

Constitutionality of No. 99, Acts of 1937, Milk Control Act---1. Presumption in Favor of Constitutionality---2. Public Wel- fare and Due Process---3. Courts without Authority over Economic Policy---4. Constitutionality of Price Control---5. Effect of Legislative Finding as to Need of Regulation in Milk Industry---6. Power of Legislature Where Supply of Essential Food Threatened---7. When Police Power May Be Exerted---8. No Closed Category of Businesses Affected with Public Interest---9. Price Fixing Provisions of Milk Control Act Held Valid Unless Discriminatory---10. Provisions Held Not Arbitrary---11. Board Acts in Quasi Judicial Capacity---12. Price Fixing Relevant to Purpose of Act---13. Provision Prices Need Not Be Uniform in Different Markets Not Discriminatory---14. Classification Not Prohibited by Equal Protection Clause---15. Extent and Limits of Discretion in Making Classification---16. Classification Not Necessarily Invalidated Because Inequality Results---17. Burden of Proving Classification Arbitrary---18. Ground for Declaring Classification Invalid---19. When Discrimination Not Denial of Equal Protection---20. Legislative Classification Permitted by Art. 7, Ch. 1, of Vermont Constitution---21. Equality Clause of Fourteenth Amendment and Proportional Clause of Vermont Constitution Same in Effect---22. Classification under Milk Control Act Not Assumed to Be Invalid on Demurrer---23. Provision of Milk Control Act as to Producers' Cooperatives Construed---24. Exemption of Charitable Organizations in Accord with Policy of State---25. Separation of Legislative, Executive and Judicial Functions of Government---26. Delegation of Power to Make Rules and Determine Facts Permissible Where Legislature Establishes Standards---27. Necessity of Establishing Basic Standard for Administrative Agency---28. Sufficiency of Standard Dependent on Circumstances of Case---29. Words Having Definite Meaning Must Be Used in Imposing Duty on Administrative Body---30. Validity of Regulatory Act---31. Limits of Delegated Authority Found in Terms of Delegation---32. Authority of Milk Control Board to Designate Marketing Areas Implied---33. "Natural Marketing Area" Defined---34. "Market" Held Adequately Defined in Act---35. Authority to Designate Markets Not Improper Delegation of Legislative Power.

1. Every presumption is to be made in favor of the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, and it will not be declared unconstitutional without clear and irrefragable proof that it infringes the paramount law.

2. So far as requirement of due process is concerned, and in absence of other constitutional restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose.

3. Courts are without authority either to declare economic policy of state or to override policy declared by legislature.

4. Price control, like any other form of regulation, is unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory or demonstrably irrelevant to policy Legislature is free to adopt, and hence unnecessary and unwarranted interference with personal liberty.

5. In prosecution for selling milk without license in violation of No. 99, Acts of 1937, regulating distribution and sale of milk, legislative finding, as expressed in sec. 1 of the act that certain unfair, etc., trade practices carried on by producers and distributors of milk and cream are likely to result in undermining of health regulations and standards the dairy industry and the constant supply of these commodities, thus endangering public health, welfare and comfort, was conclusive upon Supreme Court in disposing of cause upon demurrer to complaint on ground that act is contrary to due process and equal protection clauses of Fourteenth Amendment and arts. 7 and 9 of Ch. 1 of the Constitution of Vermont, where there was nothing on face of statute, or from facts of which Court must take judicial notice, to show that act infringes constitutional rights.

6. Where economic conditions and business practices interfere or are likely to interfere, with adequate supply of essential article of food, it is within competency of Legislature to take proper steps to provide remedy for situation.

7. Police power may be exerted whenever necessary for preservation of public health, morals, comfort, order and safety.

8. There is no closed class or category of businesses affected with public interest, since circumstances may so change in time or differ in space as to clothe with public interest what at other times would be purely matter of private concern.

9. In view of legislative finding in sec. 1 of No. 99, Acts of 1937, regulating distribution and sale of milk, that such business is affected with public interest, price fixing provisions of act were to be held valid on demurrer to complaint for selling milk with-

out license in violation of act, unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to policy of Legislature.

10. Price fixing provisions of No. 99, Acts of 1937, regulating distribution and sale of milk are not arbitrary, since elements of costs of production, transportation, processing distribution and other services, balance between production and consumption and purchasing power of public, which milk control board is required to take into consideration in fixing just and reasonable prices, are enumerated in sec. 5 of the act.

11. Under provisions of secs. 5 and 9, No. 99, Acts of 1937, relating to public hearing and issuance of subpoenas, milk control board acts in quasi judicial capacity when fixing prices in particular market.

12. Provisions of No. 99, Acts of 1937, authorizing milk control board to fix prices of milk and cream in various marketing areas are relevant to declared purpose and policy of act to protect and promote public welfare by insuring at all times adequate supply of clean and pure milk for needs of inhabitants of State.

13. Provision of sec. 5, No. 99, Acts of 1937, that prices of milk and cream fixed by milk control board need not be uniform in all markets does not render act discriminatory, since elements required to be considered in fixing prices may vary to such an extent in different localities that what may be just and reasonable price in one market may not be so in another.

14. Equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment to federal Constitution does not prohibit legislative classification, and imposition of statutory restraints on one class which are not imposed on another.

15. State possesses wide discretion with respect to making classifications in exercise of its police power, though classification must not be purely arbitrary or irrational, but based upon real and substantial difference, having reasonable relation to subject of particular legislation.

16. Statutory classification is not invalidated by equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment merely because inequality actually results, but only if inequality produced is actually and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary.

17. Burden of proving that legislative classification is essentially arbitrary and rests upon no reasonable basis is on party who asserts it.

18. Statutory classification will not be declared invalid unless, viewed in light of facts made known or generally assumed, it is of such character as to preclude assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within knowledge and experience of legislators.

19. Statutory discrimination will not be set aside as denial of equal protection of laws if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.

20. Legislative classification that is not arbitrary or irrational may be established in exercise of police power of State and is not invalid as contrary to provisions of art. 7, Ch. 1, of Constitution of Vermont that "government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family or set of men who are a part only of that community."

21. Equality clause of Fourteenth Amendment to federal Constitution and proportional clause of Vermont Constitution (Ch. 1, art. 9) are same in effect.

22. In considering demurrer to complaint for selling milk without license contrary to provisions of No. 99, Acts of 1937, regulating distribution and sale of milk, Supreme Court could not assume that classification made in act with respect to producers' cooperatives and charitable organizations is irrational and beyond discretionary power of Legislature, since there is nothing in wording of statute or in matters of common knowledge or of which judicial notice may be taken, that shows existence of arbitrary discrimination.

23. Provision of sec. 5 of No. 99, Acts of 1937, regulating distribution and sale of milk, that act shall not be construed to prohibit producers' cooperative from blending proceeds from sale of its milk, distributing proceeds among members in accordance with contract with them and making deductions with their consent does not make price-fixing provisions of act inoperative upon milk sold by such associations, since they are included in definition of distributors.

24. Provision of sec. 5 of No. 99, Acts of 1937, regulating distribution and sale of milk, that charitable organizations shall be exempt from price-fixing provisions of act, is in line with public policy of State as expressed in Ch. 2, sec. 64, of Constitution, for encouragement and protection of such organizations.

25. It is fundamental principle of American Constitutional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Kelbro, Inc. v. Rawson C. Myrick, Secretary of State, Et Als
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1943
    ... ... and irrefragable proof that it infringes the paramount law ... [113 Vt. 67] State v. Auclair, 110 Vt. 147, ... 156, 4 A.2d 107; Village of Waterbury v ... Melendy et al. , 109 Vt. 441, 447, 199 A ... 236; Nebbia v ... [30 A.2d ... ...
  • Property of One Church Street City of Burlington, In re
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • August 4, 1989
    ... ... In 1986 the Legislature ... amended the Burlington City Charter to state as follows, in relevant part: ... Except for the property of utilities subject to the provisions of ... See State v. Auclair, 110 Vt. 147, 161, 4 A.2d 107, 113 (1939). But taxpayer asserts that since State v. Ludlow ... ...
  • In re Cornell
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1941
    ... ... discharged ...          14. P ... L. 4017, 4027, 4030 and 4043 authorize the state board of ... supervisors of the insane to discharge a patient who has ... become sane since his ... unconstitutional but also grave doubts upon that score ... State v. Auclair, 110 Vt. 147, 156, 4 A.2d ... 107; Central Vt. Ry., Inc. v. Campbell, ... supra; State v. Clement ... ...
  • State v. Gamelin
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1940
    ... ... Auclair, 110 Vt. 147, 160, 4 A.2d 107; Hodge ... Drive-it-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati, 284 U.S ... 335, 52 S.Ct. 144, 76 L.Ed. 323. This she has failed to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Ruminations
    • United States
    • Vermont Bar Association Vermont Bar Journal No. 45-2, June 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...98 Vt. 343 (1925). [29] City of Montpelier v. Gates, 106 Vt. 116 (1934). [30] State v. Levy, 113 Vt. 374 (1943). [31] State v. Auclair, 110 Vt. 147, 156 (1939). [32] Clark v. City of Burlington, 101 Vt. 391 (1928). [33] State v. Auclair, 110 Vt. at 156. [34] In re Cornell, 111 Vt. 454, 460 ......
  • Ruminations
    • United States
    • Vermont Bar Association Vermont Bar Journal No. 38-4, December 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...[24] Id., §§ 5727, 5732. [25] Laws of 1917, No. 186; General Laws (1917) § 5916. [26] General Laws (1917) § 5907. [27] State v. Auclair, 110 Vt. 147, 158-159(1939). [28] Smith v. Moore, 74 Vt. 81, 88 (1902). [29] Id. at 84. [30] Tyler v. Turner Center System, 102 Vt. 202 (1929). [31] State ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT