Whitaker v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 30 July 1920
• Citation: 80 Fla. 352,86 So. 247
• Parties: WHITAKER, Sheriff v. PARSONS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

86 So. 247

80 Fla. 352

WHITAKER, Sheriff v. PARSONS.

Florida Supreme Court

July 30, 1920

Error to Court of Record, Escambia County; C. Moreno Jones, Judge.

Habeas corpus by G. F. Parsons against H. Whitaker, as Sheriff of Escambia County. From a judgment discharging petitioner from custody, the sheriff brings error.

Reversed.

Ellis J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Judicial notice that cattle raising is important industry in Florida. The court takes judicial notice that cattle raising is an important industry in this state.

Regulations fostering the cattle-raising industry within state's power. To prescribe and enforce regulations suitable to foster the cattle-raising industry, in furtherance of the general welfare, are within the sovereign governmental powers of the state, to be exercised through enactments by the law-making department.

Regulations for any given purpose within discretion of law-making power. The character and extent of appropriate regulations to be enforced for any given purpose are within the discretion of the law-making power, subject only to organic provisions securing private rights.

Regulations to eradicate ticks within the state's power. Compulsory eradication of ticks from cattle, by 'dipping' the cattle in solutions that destroy the ticks, may be an appropriate and effective means of preserving the health and well-being of the cattle; and the due enforcement of reasonable regulations to accomplish such a salutary purpose is within the sovereign powers of the state, whether exerted as a police, taxation, eminent domain, or other governmental power.

Governmental powers of state are limited by state and federal Constitutions. All governmental powers of the state are subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution of the state and to applicable provisions of the federal Constitution; the organic provisions being designed to secure all individual rights that are consistent with efficient government, to conserve the general welfare.

Individual rights are subject to the regulating powers of government. Individual rights to life, liberty, and property are in law acquired and enjoyed subject to the exercise of the regulating powers of government, and such rights are not protected by the Constitution from the due exercise of such governing powers.

Constitutional government aims to secure individual rights, subject to public good. The purpose of constitutional government is to secure individual rights, subject to valid regulations enacted in the interest of the public good.

Provisions as to due process of law are subject to restrictions provisions as to equal protection of the laws are subject to legislative restrictions. The organic provisions requiring due process and equal protection of the laws, in depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property, expressly recognize that the right to protect life, liberty, and property is not absolute, but that it is subject to restrictions that must necessarily be imposed by the law-making power, 'in order to secure the blessing of constitutional liberty,' in 'maintaining public order,' to 'insure domestic tranquillity,' and 'to promote the general welfare.'

Statute making dipping of cattle compulsory to avoid tick infection does not abridge privileges and immunities; does not deny due process of law; does not deny equal protection of the laws. The provisions of chapter 7345, Acts of 1917, relating to the compulsory dipping of cattle to avoid the evils of tick infection, are within the regulating powers of the state, to the exercise of which power property rights are subject; and the statute itself does not abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen, or deny to any one due process or equal protection of the laws.

For arbitrary or illegal action in applying statute violating rights of individuals there is a remedy in due course of law. If rights of individuals are violated by arbitrary unreasonable, or illegal action in applying a statute, a remedy is available in due course of legal proceedings.

Compulsory cattle-dipping act does not arbitrarily invade personal or property rights; compulsory cattle-dipping act does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative powers. The provisions of chapter 7345, Acts of 1917, relative to compulsory cattle dipping to eradicate tick infection, do not in terms or purpose arbitrarily or illegally invade personal or property rights, or delegate legislative powers, in violation of the Constitution.

Legislature may impose additional duties on constitutional officers where not forbidden by the organic law. The Legislature, having all the law-making power of the state that is not withheld by the Constitution, may prescribe duties to be performed by officers expressly provided for by the Constitution, in addition to the duties of those officers that are defined in the Constitution, where not forbidden by the organic law.

Legislature may prescribe additional duties to be performed by the administrative officers of the executive department. The Constitution does not withhold from the Legislature the power to prescribe additional duties to be performed by the state treasurer, or others of 'the administrative officers of the executive department,' that are not inconsistent with their duties as defined by the Constitution; and such duties may be to act as members of boards or commissions, in conjunction with other officers who are provided for by statute, the commissioners issued to constitutional officers being sufficient to cover any duties imposed upon them by law.

Statute making cattle dipping compulsory is a general law. Chapter 7345, Acts of 1917, is a general law potentially applicable to all the counties of the state, exerting a sovereign power of the state for a general state purpose.

Compulsory cattle-dipping act, permitting adoption by election in counties, does not delegate law-making powers. The local option features of chapter 7345, Acts of 1917, do not delegate to the counties the power to declare what the law shall be, or how it shall operate when it becomes effective; but it enables the counties respectively to determine by an election whether certain provisions of a complete statute shall become operative in the particular counties. This is not an unconstitutional delegation of law-making power.

COUNSEL

Van C. Swearingen, Atty. Gen., D. Stuart Gillis, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Myers & Myers, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.

John P. Stokes and John S. Beard, both of Pensacola, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

By petition to the court of record for Escambia county, Fla., G. F. Parsons alleged that he was held in custody by the sheriff under a warrant of arrest charging:

That he 'did in violation of chapter 7345, Acts of 1917, Laws of the State of Florida, knowingly and willfully violate and fail to keep and perform certain rules and regulations regularly and lawfully made and promulgated by the state live stock sanitary board of the state of Florida, by then and there, as owner, custodian, and in charge of certain cattle, in said justice of the peace district, after being served with notice and receiving instructions concerning the methods of systematic tick eradication, failing to dip such cattle on said 30th day of April, A. D. 1920, at the Pleasant Grove vat, located at Pleasant Grove, in said justice of the peace district, as he was designated to do at such time and place by official notice duly and legally served upon him personally, on the 16th day of April, A. D. 1920, and that, at said time, and in said place, the said chapter 7345, Acts of 1917, Laws of the State of Florida, was then and there in full force and effect, and before said time a special election had been called and held in Escambia county, Fla., according to the laws governing special elections, at which a majority of the qualified electors voting in said election had declared in favor of compulsory systematic tick eradication work and compulsory cattle dipping, and all acts, matters, things, resolutions, and notices had been done, performed, and published by said state live stock sanitary board of the state of Florida, to put said chapter 7345, Acts of 1917, Laws of the State of Florida, in full force and effect in said county of Escambia at the time and at the place mentioned.'

It is further alleged:

'That petitioner's 'detention and custody and deprivation of liberty by said H. Whitaker, as such sheriff, is without authority of law, and is in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Florida, in that said chapter 7345, Acts 1917, Laws of the State of Florida, is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendmant to the Constitution of the United States, in that it deprives petitioner of his liberty and property without due process of law, and deprives him of equal protection of the laws, and it abridges his privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, and for the same reasons is in violation of section 12, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the state of Florida, and is in violation of section 15, article 16, of the Constitution of the state of Florida, and is in violation of article 3 of the Constitution of the state of Florida, and is in violation of section 24, article 4, of the Constitution of the state of Florida, and is in violation of section 20, article 3, of the Constitution of the state of Florida, and is in violation of section 22 of the Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the state of Florida, and is in violation of section 16, article 3, of the Constitution of the state of Florida, and is in violation of other provisions of the Constitution of the state of Florida.'

A writ of habeas corpus was...