The State ex rel. Missouri State Board of Agriculture v. Woods

• Decision Date: 13 June 1927
• Docket Number: 28225
• Citation: 296 S.W. 381,317 Mo. 403
• Parties: The State ex rel. Missouri State Board of Agriculture v. W. W. Woods, Assessor of Boone County
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

296 S.W. 381

317 Mo. 403

The State ex rel. Missouri State Board of Agriculture v. W. W. Woods, Assessor of Boone County

No. 28225

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 13, 1927

Peremptory writ awarded.

North T. Gentry, Attorney-General, for relator.

(1) In the interpretation of statutes, the occasion and necessity of the law, the mischief felt, and the object and the remedy in view are to be considered. State ex rel. v McQuillan, 246 Mo. 534; St. Louis v. Christian Brothers College, 257 Mo. 552; Stack v. General Baking Co., 283 Mo. 410, 412. (a) Statutes should be so construed as to sustain rather than ignore or defeat them, to give them operation instead of treating them as meaningless. Spicer v. Spicer, 249 Mo. 599. (b) While criminal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant, the courts are not authorized to so interpret them as to defeat the obvious purpose of the Legislature. State v. Woodward, 182 Mo. 407; State v. Mauer, 255 Mo. 162; State v. Walker, 309 Mo. 108. (c) "Intent is the spirit which gives life to legislative enactment." Railway v. Gracey, 126 Mo. 472; 2 Lewis-Southerland on Statutory Construction, sec. 363; City of St. Louis v. Lane, 110 Mo. 258. (2) "It is also true that the police power of the State extends to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the State, and this includes the right to enact suitable regulations looking to the accomplishment of a public purpose and designed for the promotion of public interests." Morrison v Morey, 146 Mo. 562; Tiedeman's Limitations on Police Power, sec. 1; Cooley's Const. Lim. p. 704. (3) "It is not for the courts to say whether a classification is wise or necessary. It is sufficient if any difference in situation or condition exists which affords a reasonable ground for the classification." Arnold v. Hanna, 290 S.W. 422. (4) The statute in question, while awkwardly worded, is sufficient to inform the court as well as officers acting thereunder, that it was the intention of the General Assembly that the assessor of each county should take the inquiry blanks furnished him by the county clerk, which had been previously approved by the State Board of Agriculture, and obtain approximately correct answers to questions therein. The statute goes farther and details the kind of information that the State Board of Agriculture shall ask for and that the assessor shall obtain, to-wit, "actual crop acreage and other essential agricultural and country life statistics." Evidently the General Assembly thought that the obtaining of such information and the dissemination thereof would be of value to the people of Missouri, just as Congress deemed the obtaining of such information from the various states and the dissemination thereof would be of value to the people of the United States. While it is true that this section of the statute does not make it the duty of the owner of the farms to give such information to the assessor, yet Section 11943 provides a penalty for any person refusing to give such information. Section 11943 makes it a misdemeanor for any person to refuse to give the information to the assessor which is required by Section 11942. So whether the first section is complete in itself or not, does not matter; the legislative intent is fully expressed in the second section and that intent fully appears when both sections are taken together. This is sufficient. (5) The obtaining of the information is a reasonable exercise of the police power of the State. It is a fact well known that farm conditions today are not as good as they should be, and this condition has been increasing year after year for several years past. If true farm conditions can be obtained by the assessor, if the answers to the various questions will disclose the reason or reasons for depreciated prices and for the difficulty of making farming a success financially, then the General Assembly would be in a position to take advantage of such information and pass needed legislation. Or, Congress could use such information to good advantage in the enactment of Federal statutes. Whether such information was needed and would be of value to the Legislature or to the national Congress, was a question for the Legislature to decide and is not a judicial question. The statute being a reasonable one, and no hardship resulting to any one by reason of its enactment, it should be held valid.

George S. Starrett, Prosecuting Attorney of Boone County, for respondent.

(1) Section 11942, Revised Statutes 1919, is unconstitutional, in that it requires the assessor to obtain for each farm assessed by him approximately correct answers to the questions in such blank contained, but does not require the owner of the farm to answer such question. In other words the statute imposes a duty on the assessor to obtain the information called for in the inquiry blank furnished by the State Board of Agriculture, but imposes no duty on the land owner to give such information. It is contended that it was the intention of the Legislature to require the landowner, if present when the assessor calls, to give such information, and that such intention is implied from the provisions of this statute. It should be noted, however, that Section 11943 provides that any person who fails or refuses to give such information shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. In this situation, the enforcement of this statute against the landowner would be a criminal proceeding, wherein nothing could be taken by implication or intendment. This statute, therefore, is ineffective as to the landowner, because it imposes no duty on him to give the information called for by such statute. United States v. Mitchell, 58 F. 997. (2) Requiring the farmers to give such information, under penalty of a fine or jail sentence, is not within the reasonable police power of the State, and such a statute should be strictly construed. "If remedial, it must be liberally construed in behalf of both respondents and appellant, while if it be a penal law it must be strictly construed against the respondents as the representatives of the State, and liberally construed in favor of appellant." State v. Robinson, 253 Mo. 284; State v. Koock, 202 Mo. 235. (3) The next question presented is whether or not the statute can be enforced against the tenant, renter, lessee, manager or superintendent of a farm for refusal to give information called for by this statute. It is true that this statute imposes a duty on all such persons to give the required information in the absence of the landowner, but it does not require the landowner to give such information. In this situation the question presented is whether or not this statute is class legislation. No doubt is entertained about the power of the Legislature to classify objects of legislation, but it has no power to take a natural class of persons, split that class in two, designate the fractions as two classes, then pass different laws for the government of each. State v. Miksicek, 225 Mo. 575; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 177. The Legislature has taken the farmers as a class, split this class in two, designated one fraction who live on rented land, and the other as the farmers who own their land, then enacted different rules for the government of each,...