State v. Parker Distilling Company

• Citation: 139 S.W. 486,237 Mo. 103
• Parties: THE STATE, Appellant, v. PARKER DISTILLING COMPANY
• Decision Date: 15 July 1911
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

139 S.W. 486

237 Mo. 103

THE STATE, Appellant, v. PARKER DISTILLING COMPANY

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 15, 1911

GRAVES, J. Valliant, C. J., and Lamm and Woodson, JJ concur; Brown, J., concurs in first paragraph and result Kennish, J., concurs in result; Ferriss, J., absent.

OPINION

In Banc

On Motion of Attorney-General for Rule on Clerk.

GRAVES, J.

In this case the Attorney-General asks us for a rule upon our clerk. The case came here upon the appeal of the State from an adverse decision in the court nisi. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Correction was affirmed by our opinion. The motion of the Attorney-General sufficiently states the facts, and thus reads:

"Comes now Elliott W. Major, Attorney-General within and for the State of Missouri, and informs the court that in the case of State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Parker Distilling Company, a corporation, respondent, he appeared for and in behalf of the appellant and as its duly authorized attorney of record, and that in said cause a written opinion was delivered by this court on the 3d day of July, 1911; that three copies thereof together with one for the official reporter, were prepared by the official stenographer appointed by his honor, Judge Woodson, who wrote the opinion therein, and delivered the same to Honorable J. D. Allen, clerk of this court, as provided by section 11,268 Revised Statutes 1909; that demand for one of such copies, without charge, has been made by informant upon said clerk and he refuses to deliver same to informant.

"Wherefore informant prays that an order be made directing and requiring said clerk to furnish and deliver to informant, free of charge, a copy of said written opinion, as provided by said section 11,268."

The motion for a rule upon our clerk calls for a construction of section 3 of an act approved June 12, 1909. The constitutionality of this act has been questioned by the clerk of this court, and this is a proper occasion to give expression to our views thereon. The act in question (Laws 1909, p. 868) is thus entitled:

"An Act to provide stenographers for the judges of the Supreme Court and the judges of the several Courts of Appeals which are now established or which may hereafter be established in this State, and to define their duties and regulate their salaries and compensation, and to repeal all laws now existing on the same subject."

Section 3, thereof, thus reads: "Each stenographer appointed under this act shall prepare four copies of each written opinion delivered by the judge by whom he was appointed and shall deliver one copy thereof to the official reporter of said court and file three copies thereof with the clerk of such Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and such clerk shall immediately, and without charge, forward two of such copies to the clerk of the court from which said cause was appealed, to be by him delivered to counsel for the appellant and respondent in the case in which said opinion is delivered."

Section 4 of the same act, reads: "All former laws and acts authorizing the appointment of stenographers for judges of the Supreme Court and judges of the Courts of Appeals in this State are hereby repealed."

There are two questions suggested by this motion. Those we shall take in order.

I. Prior to this Act of 1909, the clerk of this court had a right under the law to charge certain fees for copies of the opinions filed in any case, if they were furnished to the litigants or to other parties desiring the same. The office, and all the working force thereof, is paid by means of fees. If the office does not earn sufficient money to maintain itself, the State suffers therefrom in reduced service. No salary is paid out of general taxation, but the salaries of the clerk, his assistants, and deputies are paid solely from the fees earned. If the fees earned do not justify a sufficient working force, this branch of the State's service is crippled. This, however, is only incidental to the real question. We have set out the title to this bill. Nowhere in such title is there an indication that the clerk's office was to be affected by the proposed law. No man reading this title would have the faintest idea that in the body of the bill was a clause depriving the clerk of this court of a very large part of the revenue necessary to sustain and run the office. Clerks of appellate courts are only named in section 3, supra.

That such portion of this act...