Appeal from St. Louis court of criminal correction; Willis H. Clark, Judge.
Edwards Whitaker was convicted of violating Act March 5, 1897, and appeals. Reversed.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction by the St. Louis court of criminal correction for an alleged violation of the act of March 5, 1897, entitled "An act requiring persons, associations, and corporations
owning or operating street cars to provide for the well-being and protection of employés" (Acts 1897, p. 102). The information was in these words:
"In the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. St. Louis, Mo., January 19th, 1900. State of Missouri, Plaintiff, vs. Edwards Whitaker and Jilson J. Coleman. Charged with failure to provide screen for front end of electric street car. Richard M. Johnson, assistant prosecuting attorney of the St. Louis court of criminal correction, now here in court, on behalf of the state of Missouri, information makes as follows: That Edwards Whitaker is the president, agent, and officer of the St. Louis Transit Co., and Jilson J. Coleman is the general manager, agent, and officer of the St. Louis Transit Co., which said company is a corporation duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Missouri, and as such, at the date hereinafter named, owned, operated, and constructed a line of street railway in the said city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, operated by the motive power of electricity; that on the 1st day of November, and upon every day in November, 1899, and upon the 1st day in December, 1899, and on the 1st day of January, 1900, and every day up to the filing of this information in said month, and on the 18th day of January, 1900, said corporation, through and by said Edwards Whitaker, its president, agent, and officer, and Jilson J. Coleman, its general manager, agent, and officer, did willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully operate an electric street car, which was not a trail car, attached to a motor car upon its lines, to wit, on the Mound City Line, electric car No. 259, while said electric car was not provided at the front end with a screen composed of glass or other material, which fully and completely protected the motorman of said electric car, or other person stationed on the front end of said car, from wind and storm while said motorman, or other person, was guiding and directing said car; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state. Richard M. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney of the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.
"State of Missouri, City of St. Louis — ss.: Richard M. Johnson, being duly sworn, upon his oath says that the facts stated in the above information are true. Richard M. Johnson."
The entire act is as follows:
"An act requiring persons, associations and corporations, owning or operating street cars to provide for the well-being and protection of employés.
"Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
"Section 1. That every electric street car, other than trail cars, which are attached to motor cars, shall be provided during the months of November, December, January, February and March of each year, at the front end, with a screen composed of glass or other material which shall fully and completely protect the driver, motorman, gripman or other person stationed on such front end and guiding or directing said car from wind and storm.
"Sec. 2. Any person, agent or officer of any association or corporation violating any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined in a sum not less than twenty-five dollars or more than one hundred dollars for each day that any car belonging to or used by such person, association or corporation is permitted to remain unprovided with the screen required by section 1 of this act. And it is hereby made the duty of the prosecuting attorney of each county in the state to enforce the provisions of this act, for which he shall be entitled, in addition to his ordinary fee or salary, one fourth of the fine recovered. Approved March 5, 1897."
Acts 1897, p. 102.
The defendant moved to quash on the following grounds:
"First. Because the said information does not state facts showing that the defendants, or either of them, are guilty of any offense against the laws of Missouri.
"Second. Because the act of the legislature upon which the information is predicated is unconstitutional and void, in that: (1) The subject of the act is not clearly, or at all, expressed in its title, as required by section 28 of article 4 of the constitution of Missouri. (2) Said act is special legislation, and contravenes section 53, art. 4, of the constitution of Missouri. (3) Said act imposes excessive fines and inflicts cruel and unusual punishment, and thereby contravenes sections 24, 25, art. 2, of the constitution of Missouri. (4) Said act gives to the prosecuting attorney `one-fourth of the fine recovered,' and thereby contravenes section 8, art. 11, of the constitution of Missouri. (5) Said act undertakes to punish the defendants for the alleged wrong and default of another, and deprives the corporation owning the car of the right to contract with its motormen for the operation of cars without screens, and deprives the motorman of the right to contract to operate such cars without screens, and also of the right to waive the presumed benefits to such motorman sought by said act, and thereby contravenes section 30, art. 2, of the constitution of Missouri.
"Third. Because that the said act is in contravention of section 1, art. 14, of amendments to the constitution of the United States, in that it denies to the corporation and its employés the right to contract as to the use of cars without screens, and in that it singles out from all other classes of street cars electric cars, and requires only the owners of electric cars to screen the front end thereof, and thereby denies to the motorman, gripman, and drivers of all other street cars the equal protection of the laws with motorman
of electric cars, and also denies to the owners and operators of electric cars the equal protection of the laws, in that it imposes a burden on them not imposed upon the operators of any other class of street cars.
"Fourth. Because said act is unreasonable and unjust in its provisions, and it was and is beyond the power, authority, or jurisdiction of the general assembly of Missouri to enact under the constitution and laws of the state."
The court denied the motion to quash, and defendants excepted. On the 22d day of June, 1900, the state dismissed as to defendant Coleman, and on the same day the case was tried as to defendant Whitaker on the following statement of facts: "(2) That the St. Louis Transit Company was, at the time mentioned in the information, and ever since has been, and it still is, a street-railway corporation of the city of St. Louis. (b) That the defendant Edwards Whitaker was at the times mentioned in said information, ever since has been, and still is, president of the St. Louis Transit Company. (c) That between the beginning of the month of November of the year 1899 and the end...
