State v. Social Hygiene, Inc.
Decision Date | 06 February 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 52715,52715 |
Citation | 156 N.W.2d 288,261 Iowa 914 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. SOCIAL HYGIENE, INC., Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., David A. Elderkin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger F. Peterson, County Atty., for appellant.
Reed, Merner, Sindlinger, Baker & Sabbath, Cedar Falls, for appellee.
The State has appealed from the judgment of the municipal court of Cedar Falls sustaining defendant's demurrer and motion to quash an information charging violation of section 725.5, Code of Iowa by 'offering for sale by vending machine articles or things designed or intended to prevent conception.'
Neither the wisdom of the statute nor the authority of the legislature to proscribe by constitutionally enacted legislation is involved. The challenge is to the method of original enactment and the form of the statute.
Section 725.5 of our Code provides:
Defendant's attack and the trial court's ruling were limited to the constitutional question under Article III, section 29, Constitution of Iowa. This section provides:
The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer and motion to quash on three grounds. They will be separately considered.
I. The statute now under attack was originally enacted in 1886 and appears in chapter 177, Laws of the Twenty-first General Assembly.
The title to the original Act is as follows:
'AN ACT to Suppress the circulation, advertising, and vending of Obscene and Immoral Literature and articles of Indecent and Immoral use, and to confiscate such property.'
The several sections of the original Act have been divided by the code editor pursuant to section 14.13, Code of Iowa, and have been amended by subsequent legislatures but the substance of what is material to this case appears in all Codes since the original enactment including the enacted Code of 1897.
With this historical background it would appear obvious that the statute is a legislative enactment of public policy. It could hardly be argued with any plausibility that the statute as it appears is the result of any legislative log-rolling or surprise.
State v. Talerico, 227 Iowa 1315, 1322, 290 N.W. 660, 663.
This has been the rule since as early as 1856, see State ex rel. Weir v. The County Judge, 2 Iowa 280, 282, and remains the law. See Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 146 N.W.2d 626.
II. The trial court held and appellee argues that the original act was not enacted pursuant to the constitution in that it was duplicitous and embodied more than one subject matter. We do not agree.
Our court, as well as courts in other jurisdictions, has considered this problem many times.
We recently reviewed the problem in depth in Long v. Board of Supervisors, 258 Iowa 1278, 142 N.W.2d 378. We said:
(loc. cit. 1282 and 1283, 142 N.W.2d, loc. cit. 381)
We referred to the landmark case of State v. Talerico, supra, noting that 'this constitutional provision was designed to prevent surprise in legislation, to prevent the union in one bill of matters having no fair relation to each other.' In the Talerico case this appears:
(227 Iowa loc. cit. 1322, 290 N.W. loc. cit. 663)
The title to the Act now under attack referred to the circulation, advertising, and vending of obscene and immoral literature and articles of indecent and immoral use. The Act then set forth what the legislature intended to include within the proscription of the statute including any article or thing designed or intended for prevention of conception. When the legislature thus set forth what was within the purview of its act we cannot say that the acts so set forth were so unrelated as to contravene the provisions of the constitution. They were reasonably connected with the title and 'not utterly incongruous thereto.'
An interesting article appears in 42 Minn. Law Review 389 cited by appellant.
A one-subject rule for laws has found its way, in one form or another, into the constitutions of forty-one of our states. This provision is frequently invoked by litigants to question the validity of a statute.
'The primary and universally recognized purpose of the one subject rule is to prevent log-rolling in enactment of laws. The practice of several minorities combining their several proposals as different provisions of a single bill and this consolidating their votes so that a majority is obtained for the omnibus bill where perhaps no single proposal of each minority could have obtained majority approval separately.
'Another stated purpose for the provision is to prevent 'riders' from being attached to bills that are popular and so certain of adoption that the rider will secure adoption not on its own merits, but on the merits of the measure to which it is attached. * * *
'Another purpose served by the one-subject rule is to facilitate orderly legislative procedure. * * *
III. The trial court held and appellee argues that the title of the Act creating what is now section 725.5 of the Code contains no expression of the subject matter, i.e. articles designed or intended for preventing conception and thus contravenes the constitution. We do not agree.
Much that we have said in preceding divisions is applicable here and need not be repeated.
In Doyle v. Kahl, 242 Iowa 153, 46 N.W.2d 52 there was a constitutional attack on the Motor Vehicle Responsibility Act. On page 157 of 242 Iowa, on page 54 of 46 N.W.2d this appears:
* * *'
Security Commission, et al., 237 Iowa 1301, 1312, 1313, 25 N.W.2d 491, and cases cited therein, and 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 219.
Neither the authority of the legislature to enact statutes relating to 'acts that are indecent and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds ex rel. State
...to legislation when there is a common denominator consisting of an overall subject matter. See, e.g. , State v. Soc. Hygiene, Inc. , 261 Iowa 914, 156 N.W.2d 288, 289, 292 (Iowa 1968) (finding that a bill with the stated purpose of "suppress[ing] the vending of articles of indecent and immo......
-
Lee Enterprises, Inc. v. Iowa State Tax Commission
...Knorr v. Beardsley, 240 Iowa 828, 38 N.W.2d 236 (1949); State v. Talerico, 227 Iowa 1315, 290 N.W. 660 (1940); State v. Social Hygiene, Inc., Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 288 (1968); Monamotor Oil Co. v. Johnson, 3 F.Supp. 189 (S.D. Iowa, 1933), affirmed 292 U.S. 86, 54 S.Ct. 575, 78 L.Ed. 1141 (1934),......
-
Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Commission
...747, 790--792, 88 S.Ct. 1344, 1372--1373, 20 L.Ed.2d 312; Strong v. Town of Lansing, 179 N.W.2d 365, 367 (Iowa); State v. Social Hygiene, Inc., 261 Iowa 914, 922, 156 N.W.2d 288; Green v. City of Mt. Pleasant, 256 Iowa 1184, 1196, 131 N.W.2d 5; May's Drug Stores v. State Tax Commission, 242......
-
State ex rel. Turner v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.
...533, 537--538 (Iowa). III. And as we have consistently held, the legislature may be its own lexicographer. E.g., State v. Social Hygiene, Inc., 156 N.W.2d 288, 292 (Iowa). IV. Defendants contend, however, § 713.24(2b) of the 1966 Code, is penal in nature and must be strictly Admittedly the ......