Woodson, J., dissenting as to grounds of unconstitutionality of act.
In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Johnson County; Nick M. Bradley, Judge.
An indictment against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company for a violation of one of the labor laws having been quashed, the state appeals. Affirmed.
The state of Missouri appeals from a judgment nisi quashing an indictment against defendant for violating one of the labor laws of the state. To grasp the scope of indictment and laws (and criticisms leveled at both), it will be useful to make the following statement of the case:
At the October term, 1907, of the Johnson county circuit court there was presented the following indictment (omitting caption): "The grand jurors of the state of Missouri duly impaneled, sworn, and charged diligently to inquire within and for the body of the county of Johnson in the state of Missouri, upon their oaths, present and charge: That at the said county of Johnson and state of Missouri, on the 30th day of October, 1907, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company was and now is a corporation duly organized and doing business under the laws of the state of Missouri, and engaged in operating a line of railroad in said state of Missouri, that then and there said Missouri Pacific Railway Company unlawfully did require and permit Herman McClain, a certain telegraph operator, then and there in the employment of said Missouri Pacific Railway Company, to be on duty for more than eight hours in a day of twenty-four hours, said telegraph operator then and there being a telegraph operator who spaced trains by the use of the telegraph, under what is known and termed the `block system,' to wit, by reporting trains to another office or offices and to a train dispatcher operating trains under signals, said telegraph operator then and there also being a train dispatcher in the service of the said Missouri Pacific Railway Company, whose duties substantially pertained then and there to the movement of cars, engines, and trains on the railroad of the said Missouri Pacific Railway Company by the use of the telegraph in dispatching and reporting trains and receiving and transmitting train orders, said telegraph operator then and there not being a telegraph operator at a station kept open only during the daytime where only one telegraph operator was employed, and said telegraph operator then and there not being on duty in any case of sickness, death, wreck, or washout; against the peace and dignity of the State. Ewing Cockrell, Prosecuting Attorney within and for Johnson County, Missouri." On the 25th of November, 1907, defendant entered its appearance, and filed a motion to quash, based on the general grounds that on its face the indictment failed to state facts showing defendant guilty of any offense known to the common law, the statutes of this state, or the state or federal Constitution. The fourth ground is that the indictment is based on an act of the General Assembly
(Laws Mo. 1907, p. 332) in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, the amendments thereto, and the Constitution of Missouri in sundry specifications, earmarked from "a" to "o" inclusive, as follows:
"(a) Said act violates section 10 of article 2, of the Constitution of Missouri of 1875 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 132), in this, that courts of justice should be open to every person, and certain remedy provided for every injury to property, and that right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.
"(b) Because said act violates section 21 of article 2, of said Constitution of Missouri, in this, that it authorizes the taking of defendant's property, for an alleged public use, by compelling it to pay telegraph operators for eight hours' service, when others belonging to the same natural class can be required to work double that length of time.
"(c) Because said act violates section 30 of article 2 (page 166) of the Constitution of Missouri of 1875, in this, that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. In other words, defendant's property cannot be confiscated under the guise of law, by fixing, as a maximum, eight hours' labor, including one meal hour, for telegraph and telephone operators, when, by so doing, they are thereby singled out of a natural class without any reference to the other members of said class.
"(d) Because said act violates section 28 of article 4 (page 185) of said Constitution, in this, that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; whereas, the act under consideration, in its title, simply refers to telegraph operators and train dispatchers, while the body of the act undertakes to legislate in favor of telephone operators and other employés not mentioned in the title of the act.
"(e) Because said act violates section 28 of article 4, of said Constitution, in this, that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; whereas the act under consideration, in its title, refers to all telegraph operators and train dispatchers in the state of Missouri, while the body of the act applies only to those working under the so-called `block system.'
"(f) Because said act of 1907 violates section 53 of article 4, of said Constitution, which reads as follows: `The General Assembly shall not pass any local or special law regulating labor; * * * granting to any individual any special privilege or immunity. * * * In all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted; and whether a general law could have been applicable in any case is hereby declared a judicial question, and as such shall be judicially determined, without regard to any legislative assertion on that subject. Nor shall the General Assembly indirectly enact such special or local law by the partial repeal of a general law. * * *'
"(g) Because said law of 1907 violates the foregoing section 53 of article 4 (page 197) of said Constitution, in this, that it attempts to legislate in favor of telegraph, telephone, and other operators, as well as train dispatchers, by singling them out from a natural class engaged in the operation of trains, and only requiring them to work not exceeding eight hours out of a day of twenty-four, including one hour for meals, while the engineer, fireman, conductor, and brakemen — who belong to the same natural class, are engaged in the operation of the same train, and whose welfare and immunity from overwork, is even more important to the protection of the traveling public from wrecks, collisions, and other dangers — as explicity stated in the act of 1905, p. 112 (Ann. St. 1906, § 1072-1), may be required to work as much as sixteen hours out of a day of twenty-four, all this, too, notwithstanding said engineer, fireman, conductor, and brakemen are required to carry out the orders transmitted to them by said operator or dispatcher. A fortiori, they are required to do the physical work connected with the management and control of said train besides having all the responsibilities which devolve upon the operator or dispatcher; that said act ignores the fact that the operating crew of said train needs the same amount of rest which the operator or train dispatcher may need, and, by reason of the foregoing, is plainly class legislation, unjust discrimination in favor of two or more members of a natural class, and, by reason thereof, violates all the foregoing provisions of the Constitution of Missouri.
"(h) Because said act violates section 53, art. 4, of said Constitution of Missouri, in this, that it discriminates in favor of those operators and dispatchers located at stations having both night and day service, as opposed to those operators and dispatchers located at stations having no night service, inasmuch as the latter may be worked half again as long as the former, notwithstanding the fact that the same responsibility devolves upon both alike.
"(i) Because said act violates section 53, art. 4, of the Constitution, supra, as well as the other provisions of same, in unjustly discriminating between services performed by telegraph operators and train dispatchers under the `block system,' as opposed to those engaged in the ordinary railroad service, operating under some other system. In other words, if a train dispatcher or telegraph operator needs rest under the `block system,' the same would be equally true in regard to those who operate trains under the old system. Again, if it be necessary for the operator and dispatcher under the `block system' to have a required amount of rest, in order to prevent wrecks and collisions in the operation of trains, then, for the security of the public, it is equally incumbent on operators and dispatchers not working under the `block system,' but...
