State v. Vickens

• Decision Date: 31 January 1905
• Citation: 186 Mo. 103,84 S.W. 908
• Parties: STATE v. VICKENS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

84 S.W. 908

186 Mo. 103

STATE v. VICKENS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 31, 1905.

INSPECTION — FACTORY ACT—CONSTITUTIONALITY —FEE—REASONABLENESS.

1. Laws 1901, pp. 197, 198, directing the Governor to appoint a state factory inspector, who is authorized to appoint assistants, who are required to make two inspections in each year of all factories in the state, and to collect an inspection fee of $1, to be paid into the state treasury, is a valid exercise of the police power.

2. The act is not subject to the objection of delegating legislative or judicial duties to the factory inspectors.

3. The act applies to all factories within the state, and is not subject to the objection of discriminating between manufacturers in cities and those in the country.

4. The inspection fee provided by the act is not a tax upon property, and is within the power of the state to exact in the exercise of its police power.

5. The inspection fee is reasonable.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Hiram Moore, Judge.

J. G. Vickens was convicted of a violation of the factory inspection law, and appeals. Affirmed.

Shelly Grover, for appellant. E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.

GANTT, J.

At the March term, 1903, the assistant prosecuting attorney of the St. Louis court of criminal correction filed an information on behalf of the state wherein he charged the defendant, Vickens, as the proprietor and person in charge of the premises and establishment of the St. Louis Woodworking Company, a business concern in the city of St. Louis, whose place of business it was the duty of the state factory inspector of the state of Missouri to examine and inspect, with willfully and unlawfully refusing to pay the inspection fee of $1 for an inspection of said St. Louis Woodworking Company then and there made, upon lawful demand therefor by said inspector as required by the laws of this state. After numerous continuances, the defendant on June 15, 1903, demurred to the information on the ground, principally, that the act upon which the prosecution was bottomed was unconstitutional. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant pleaded not guilty, and was tried and convicted, and his punishment assessed at $25. He filed his motions for new trial and in arrest in due season, again asserting the unconstitutionality of the act, which motions were overruled, and he appealed to this court. The bill of exceptions was filed September 24, 1903, but this appeal was not docketed for trial until August 10, 1904. The defendant is not represented in this court by counsel, though the cause was continued at the October call to permit counsel for defendant to prepare and file a brief herein.

1. This prosecution is based upon an alleged violation of the factory inspection law of 1901, approved April 17, 1901 (Laws Mo. 1901, pp. 197, 198). By said act it is provided that the Governor shall appoint a state factory inspector, who is authorized to appoint from time to time seven assistants, and to divide the state into districts, and assign one inspector to each district; and each inspector is required to make two inspections each year of all factories, and for each inspection such inspector is required to collect $1 as an inspection fee, and all such fees are required to be paid into the state treasury. The failure to pay the fee for the inspection made May 6, 1902, is the ground of this prosecution. The information, though somewhat inartistically drawn, follows the statute, and is sufficient. The objections to the law are that it "violates sections 3 and 4 of article 10 of the Missouri Constitution, in that it imposes a burden of taxation for the maintaining of the inspection department upon one...