State v. Speed

• Decision Date: 22 June 1904
• Citation: 81 S.W. 1260,183 Mo. 186
• Parties: STATE ex rel. Attorney General v. SPEED.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

81 S.W. 1260

183 Mo. 186

STATE ex rel. Attorney General v. SPEED.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 22, 1904.

COAL OIL INSPECTORS — COMPENSATION — FEES — STATUTES — CONSTRUCTION — LOCAL LAW — CONSTITUTION.

1. Rev. St. 1889, c. 87, art. 1, § 5575, prior to its amendment by Acts 1899, p. 231, gave inspectors of coal oil all the fees collected by them; but the amendment provided that an inspector for a city having a population of 300,000 or more, should receive certain specified fees, and that he should retain $7,000 out of such fees for his compensation, and that he should pay the balance to the State Treasurer on the second Monday in January and July of each year. Prior to the amendment the fees received by the inspector had amounted to $12,000 per annum. Held, that the inspector was entitled to $7,000 annually, and not $7,000 semiannually.

2. Acts 1899, p. 231, fixing the compensation of the coal oil inspector in cities having a specified population or over, is not violative of Const. art. 4, § 53, prohibiting the passage of local or special laws, because of the fact that it in effect applies only to the city of St. Louis 3. Const. art. 9, § 12, declares that the General Assembly shall regulate the fees of all county officers by a law uniform in its operation. Acts 1899, p. 231, fixes the compensation of the coal oil inspector of a city having a population of 300,000 or more. Held, that the statute is not violative of the Constitution, since such officer is in no respect a county officer.

4. Acts 1899, p. 231, fixing the compensation of a coal oil inspector for a city having a population of 300,000 or more, is not violative of Const. art. 4, § 53, which, after enumerating particular subjects about which no special legislation shall be enacted (and not including the office of coal oil inspector), provides that, in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law can be enacted, since the circumstances and conditions of the office in a city of 300,000 are different than in other portions of the state.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Cole County; Jas. E. Hazell, Judge.

Proceedings by the state, on the relation of the Attorney General, against Richard B. Speed, to recover a sum retained by him from fees collected as coal oil inspector for the city of St. Louis. From a judgment in favor of petitioner, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

W. M. Williams, for appellant. The Attorney General and C. D. Corum, for respondent.

ROBINSON, C. J.

This is a proceeding by the state, upon the relation of the Attorney General, against the defendant, Richard B. Speed, to recover the sum of $11,477.72, alleged in the petition to have been retained by defendant from the fees collected by him while coal oil inspector for the city of St. Louis, between the 21st day of August, 1899, and the 19th day of June, 1901, in excess of the amount allowed to him by law of $7,000 per annum. To the petition filed defendant interposed a demurrer, assigning as his reason why the action therein stated against him should not be maintained, first, "because the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action," and, second, "because there is no valid enactment requiring the defendant to pay into the state treasury the fees collected by him as coal oil inspector in excess of $7,000, as demanded in said petition." This demurrer the court overruled, and, defendant declining to plead further, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for said sum of $11,477.72, as prayed for in plaintiff's petition, and the case has been brought to this court on defendant's appeal.

The theory upon which this case has been presented, and is now sought to be maintained by the state, is that since the going into effect of the act of May 19, 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 231), repealing section 5575, art. 1, c. 87, Rev. St. 1889, relating to inspectors of petroleum, etc., coal oil inspectors for cities of this state with a population of 300,000 inhabitants or over are entitled to retain $7,000, and no more, annually, out of the fees collected by them, and that the balance of such fees the inspectors shall pay over to the State Treasurer. The defendant, upon the other hand, to defeat this proceeding against himself, contends, first, that by a proper construction of the statute as enacted he, as coal oil inspector for the city of St. Louis, was entitled to retain the sum of $7,000 out of the fees collected by his office at each semiannual statement period designated in said act for the reporting of said fees, or, to state his contention directly, it is that by this statute his salary or compensation has been fixed at $14,000 per annum; and for his second contention against plaintiff's right to maintain this action against him he says that the act in question of May 19, 1899, is violative of the provisions of section 53, art. 4, of the Constitution of Missouri, prohibiting the General Assembly from passing any local or special law, and also of the provisions of section 12, art. 9, of said Constitution, in which it is declared: "The General Assembly shall, by a law uniform in its operation, provide for and regulate the fees of all county officers, and for this purpose may classify the counties by population." It will be noted that the statute in question in direct terms does not provide that the inspector for cities of 300,000 inhabitants or more shall retain or be entitled to retain $7,000 out of the fees collected by them as a per annum compensation for their services, or that they shall receive or retain semiannually compensation of that amount. No definite period is named in the act to which this designated sum of $7,000 shall be applied as and for the full compensation of the inspector; and it is this want of definiteness that has caused the two opposing interpretations of the state and the defendant to be indulged and asserted, and that has resulted in the present litigation.

The section of the statute we are called to consider reads: "Each inspector shall demand, collect and receive from the owner or person calling upon him to inspect, or for whom he shall make any inspection, fees at the following rates for inspecting or testing, gauging and branding said oils or fluids under this article, to wit: For each barrel or larger package the sum of 12 cents; for each small package the sum of six cents; and when an inspection in bulk is made, in the manner provided in section 5568, the sum of twelve cents for each barrel or other package filled, gauged and branded according to the provisions of said section: provided, that in all cities of the state, which may now have or which may hereafter have a population of three hundred thousand inhabitants or more, the said inspector of oils and petroleum shall have and retain seven thousand dollars out of the said fees collected for inspections as herein stated and required of him, as and for his full compensation, fees and salary, and out of which he shall pay all other clerical hire and other employés and all expenses of whatever character in the management and conduct of the business of his office; and the balance of said fees so collected over and above the said sum of seven thousand dollars, he shall pay over to the Treasurer of the state of Missouri, to be placed to the credit of the general revenue fund of the state. Said inspector shall, at the time of said payments to the Treasurer, take a receipt and duplicate receipt therefor. The original he shall file with the State Auditor and the duplicate he shall file in his own office and keep same as a part of the records thereof. Said payments shall be made to the Treasurer on the second Monday in January and July of each and every year, and said inspectors shall on said dates file a full, true, complete and sworn statement with the Auditor of the state for all oils inspected during the six months preceding and since his last statement and settlement, also containing the names of the persons, firms or corporations for whom inspections were made and the number of gallons of oil inspected, barrels gauged and branded." Acts 1899, p. 231. That $7,000 is to be the full compensation or salary allowed to the inspector for his services for whatever period the Legislature had in mind when this section was enacted is most certain. The period intended to be covered and compensated for by that definite salary is the vexed question, as before said, that has led to this controversy and which we are called upon to determine.

Unlike appellant, we are unable to see in the concluding provision of the section in question anything to indicate, and much less to demonstrate, that a $7,000 semiannual compensation or salary to the inspector was contemplated from the fact that the inspector is required therein to pay over to the Treasurer of the state semiannually, on the second Monday in January and July of each year, the balance of said fees by him collected over and above said sum of $7,000, and at the same time is also required to prepare and file a full, true, and complete sworn statement with the Auditor of the state of all oil inspected during the preceding six months, etc. To us these provisions of the statute serve to throw no light upon the inquiry as to the time or period intended to be covered by the $7,000 allowance as and for the full compensation for the inspector's services. Such or similar requirements are made as to almost all officers in the state intrusted with the duty of collecting the fees of their office, and out of which their salary, compensation, or allowance is to be taken or paid; some being required to make quarterly, and some semiannual, and still others annual, statements, and at such times are required to turn over the balance in their hands from the collections so made by them, over and above their designated salary, to some other designated officer. And yet we know of no officer in the...