Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Industrial Com'n

• Decision Date: 05 June 1922
• Docket Number: 10266.
• Citation: 208 P. 465,71 Colo. 495
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court
• Parties: TRAVELERS' INS. CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

208 P. 465

71 Colo. 495

TRAVELERS' INS. CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 10266.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

June 5, 1922

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1922.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henry J Hersey, Judge.

Action between the Industrial Commission of Colorado and another and the Travelers' Insurance Company and another. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

Milton Smith, Charles R. Brock, W. H. Ferguson and John P. Akolt, all of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Victor E. Keyes, Att. Gen., and John S. Fine and Samuel Chutkow Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants in error.

BURKE J.

Such is the record before us that, if a portion of section 22 of our Workmen's Compensation Act (L. 1919, p. 708) is constitutional, the judgment must be affirmed. If unconstitutional, reversed. That part of the section reads:

'The Industrial Commission shall from time to time approve and prescribe a standard or universal form, as nearly as possible, for every contract or policy of insurance, endorsement, rider, letter, or other document affecting such contract, for use in insuring the compensation herein provided for.'

Plaintiffs in error say this is a delegation to the commission of a legislative power and prohibited by the Constitution. If it is such a delegation, it requires no citation of authority to establish the prohibition. The authorities cited in support of the contention that the power thus delegated is legislative are the following: King v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co., 140 Mich. 258, 103 N.W. 616, 6 Ann.Cas. 87; Nalley v. Home Ins. Co., 250 Mo. 452, 157 S.W. 769, Ann.Cas. 1915A, 283; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 19 S.D. 59, 101 N.W. 1110; Anderson v. Man. Fire A. Co., 59 Minn. 182, 60 N.W. 1095, 63 N.W. 241, 28 L.R.A. 609, 50 Am.St.Rep. 400; Dowling v. Lan. Ins. Co., 92 Wis. 63, 65 N.W. 738, 31 L.R.A. 112; O'Neil v. Am. Fire Ins. Co., 166 Pa. 72, 30 A. 943, 26 L.R.A. 715, 45 Am.St.Rep. 650.

Each of these cases deals with the general subject of insurance. In each the Legislature, entering the theretofore open field of insurance contracts, had delegated to a commission, or commissioner, the power to make obligatory regulations concerning such contracts. In each the entire act in question fell if the delegated power were not upheld, and in each the court held this to be a delegation of legislative power. No one of them dealt with the insurance feature of workmen's compensation, or any similar subject; hence they are not necessarily controlling here.

The general rule which must guide us in the determination of this question is well stated in State v. Public Service Commission, 94 Wash. 274, 279, 162 P. 523, 525:

'The constitutional division of all governmental powers into legislative, executive, and judicial is abstract and general. Their complete separation in actual practice is impossible. The many complex relations created by modern society and business have produced many situations which can be adequately met only by vesting in the same administrative officers or bodies powers inherently partaking, to some extent, of any two or all of these three functions.'

Hence the rule that before a statute can be held unconstitutional as delegating legislative power it must clearly appear that the power in question is purely legislative. Id.

The reason for the rule that a legislative power may not be delegated should first be noted. The power to 'legislate' is the power to enact laws. A 'law' is a rule of action prescribed by authority. To 'prescribe' means to dictate, to positively command. Such laws, being obligatory, leaving no option to those upon whom they operate, the people, who confer the authority, have a right to know by whom the power will be exercised, and having selected that agency with confidence in its judgment in the exercise of the wide discretion vested in it, have a right to demand that such powers will not be delegated to unknown agents and their original authors be thus subjected to an exercise thereof uncontemplated. To secure this protection the people have, by constitutional enactment, limited the exercise of this great power to those directly chosen by them and specifically authorized thereto.

Our Workmen's Compensation Act contains 153 ...