State v. McFarland

• Decision Date: 10 September 1910
• Citation: 60 Wash. 98,110 P. 792
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. McFARLAND.

110 P. 792

60 Wash. 98

STATE v. McFARLAND.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 10, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black Judge.

George McFarland was convicted for refusal to pay hotel inspection fee, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to sustain the demurrer.

Percy Gardiner, for appellant.

Ralph C. Bell and O. T. Webb, for the State.

CROW J.

On April 1, 1910, the prosecuting attorney of Snohomish county filed an information against the defendant George McFarland which contained the following charge: 'That on or about the 3d day of March, 1910, in the county of Snohomish, state of Washington, the above-named defendant, George McFarland was the person in charge of the certain hotel commonly known and designated as the 'Mitchell Hotel', in the city of Everett, county of Snohomish, state of Washington; that said Mitchell Hotel then and there was a hotel containing more than twenty (20) rooms and less than one hundred (100) rooms for the accommodation of the public, and was then and there used, maintained, advertised, and held out to the public to be an inn, hotel, public lodging house, and place where sleeping accommodations were furnished for hire to transient guests; that one W. L. Gritman was then and there a duly appointed, qualified, and acting deputy inspector for the state of Washington; that said W. L Gritman, as such deputy inspector aforesaid, did then and there proceed to make and did make an inspection of said 'Mitchell Hotel' as provided by law; that said defendant, George McFarland, did then and there unlawfully neglect to pay to said W. L. Gritman as such deputy hotel inspector aforesaid the fee provided by law for such inspection contrary to the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state of Washington.' A demurrer to the information being overruled, the defendant was adjudged guilty of refusing to pay the legal inspection fee, was punished by the imposition of a fine and costs, was remanded to the custody of the sheriff for detention until payment, and has appealed to this court.

Appellant attacks the constitutionality of chapter 29, Sess. Laws 1909, entitled, 'An act relating to hotels, inns and public lodging houses, creating the office of state hotel inspector, and providing penalties for the violation thereof, and making an appropriation therefor,' the same being sections 6030 to 6049, inclusive, Rem. & Bal. Code. He contends that the entire act is unconstitutional and void. He insists that it makes an unreasonable, arbitrary, and illegal classification of inns, lodging houses, and hotels; that it deprives him and other citizens of this state of liberty and property without due process of law; that it denies them the equal protection of the law; that it delegates legislative powers to an individual; that it is an invasion of private affairs; and that it provides for imprisonment for debt. Section 1 of the act defines hotels as follows: 'Every building or structure kept, used or maintained as, or advertised as, or held out to the public to be an inn, hotel, or public lodging house or place where sleeping accommodations are furnished for hire to transient guests, whether with or without meals, in which ten (10) or more rooms are used for the accommodation of such guests, shall for the purpose of this act be defined to be a hotel, and whenever the word hotel shall occur in this act it shall be construed to mean every such structure as is described in this section.' Section 2 provides that every hotel more than two stories high shall be provided with certain halls, with iron fire escapes of specified size and construction with ways of egress to such fire escapes, and also provides for the posting of notices calling attention to, and directing the way to, such fire escapes. Section 4 provides for the maintenance of certain fire protection. Section 10 provides for drainage, plumbing, and other sanitary protection. Section 12 creates the office of, and provides for the appointment of, an inspector of hotels and fixes his salary. Section 13 authorizes the inspector to appoint deputies and prescribe their compensation. Section 17 reads as follows: 'Any owner, manager, agent or person in charge of a hotel who shall obstruct or hinder an inspector in the proper discharge of his duties under this act, or who shall refuse or neglect to pay the fee for inspection prescribed herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than 10 dollars ($10.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or shall be imprisoned in the county jail for not less than ten days, nor more than three months or both.' Section 19 fixes inspection fees to be paid by the hotel keeper, as follows: 'Every hotel containing twenty (20) rooms or less, for the accommodation of the public, shall pay an annual inspection fee of five dollars ($5.00) when inspected under the provisions of this act, and every hotel containing more than twenty (20) and less than one hundred (100) rooms for the accommodation of the public shall pay an annual inspection fee of ten dollars ($10.00), and every hotel containing one hundred (100) rooms or more shall pay an annual inspection fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) when inspected under the terms of this act. Such fees shall be collected by the inspector at the time of inspection and if not paid on demand the inspector or deputy may sue therefor in his own name for the use of the state, and in such case the court shall allow and enter as a part of the judgment against the defendant all the costs of such action, including a reasonable fee for any attorney necessarily employed in such action by the inspector. All moneys collected under the provisions of this act shall be paid into the state treasury in the manner provided by law.'

The first question presented for our consideration is whether the definition and classification of hotels adopted for the purposes of this act, based upon the use of ten or more guest rooms, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and invalid. 'Class legislation, often called local or private legislation consists of those laws which are limited in their operation to certain individuals or corporations or to certain districts of the territory of the state. Although from its nature this species of legislation must cast extra burdens on some and relieve others from burdens, yet, aside from state inhibitions, it has been held to be constitutional when...