Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:41:12.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Constitutional Law in 1931–32

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Charles G. Haines
Charles G. Haines
Affiliation:
University of California at Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Law as it is made by the courts, interstitially as suggested by Mr. Justice Holmes, and interpreted in the cases that arise during a year, covers only a portion of the law-making process of the American states. Judicial interpretation and judicial legislation are determined largely by the types of controversies which arise involving the interpretation and application of constitutions and laws, and by the personnel of the courts before whom the issues are litigated. It is difficult to discover the tendencies or trends which are in the molding during a decade or more of legal history; for such a short term as a year, generalizations or conclusions may be attempted only with great caution and with well understood reservations.

The significant decisions affecting state constitutional law in 1931-32 in the state supreme courts or courts of appeal and in the inferior federal courts may conveniently be grouped under the following headings: (1) the separation and delegation of powers; (2) the protection of civil rights; (3) due process of law and equal protection of the laws; (4) due process and public utility regulations; (5) due process and the police power; (6) taxation; and (7) miscellaneous decisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , August 1932 , pp. 660 - 682
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1932

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Frank, Jerome, “Are Judges Human?,” 80 Univ. of Pa. Law Rev. (Nov. and Dec., 1931), 17, 233Google Scholar.

2 I am indebted to Mr. John L. Towne, research assistant in political science, for aid in selecting the cases to be considered in this article. Certain cases which normally come within the scope of the article will be discussed in a summary and analysis of decisions relating to American administrative law in 1931, by Marshall E. Dimock, in the October number of this Review.

3 See this Review, Vol. XXIII, p. 689Google Scholar, and Vol. XXV, p. 652.

4 Harrin v. Erickson, 2 P. (2d) 296 (Sept., 1931).

5 See Adams, G. W., “The Self-Governing Bar,” in this Review, Vol. XXVI, p. 470 et seq.Google Scholar

6 In re Gibson, 4 P. (2d) 643 (Sept., 1931); see also In re Bruen, 172 P. 1152 (Wash., 1918), holding that the inherent power of the supreme court to admit attorneys to practice necessarily includes the power to disbar.

7 See In re Shattuck, 279 P. 998 (Cal., 1929); Clark v. State Bar of California, 4 P. (2d) 944 (Nov., 1931); In re Scott, 292 P. 291 (Nov., 1930); State Bar of Oklahoma v. McGhee, 298 P. 580 (1931). The Nevada act was upheld because, it was declared, the court examines the record anew, reviewing the facts and the law. Cf. Adams, op. cit., 497-481, and 15 Minn. Law Rev. (June, 1931), 814Google Scholar.

8 State v. Cannon, 240 N.W. 441 (Jan., 1932). Cf. also State v. Cannon, 221 N.W. 603 (1928), holding that the supreme court has inherent power to disbar attorneys in the exercise of original jurisdiction, deferring to statutory regulation of the matter out of comity, and 226 N.W. 385 (1929). In State Board of Law Examiners v. Phelan, 5 P. (2d) 263 (Nov., 1931), the supreme court of Wyoming held a law valid providing for the right of trial by jury in disbarment proceedings as not interfering with the inherent power of courts.

9 State v. Farmer's State Bank of Polk, 237 N.W. 857 (July, 1931). See Mich. Law Rev. (Mar., 1932), 773, note 30Google Scholar.

10 Hodges v. Public Service Commission, 159 S.E. 834 (Aug., 1931). See also 18 Virginia Law Rev. (Jan., 1932), 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Sparkman v. County Budget Commission, 137 So. 809 (Oct., 1931).

12 Mayhew v. Nelson, 178 N.W. 921 (Dec., 1931), voiding an Illinois law regulating payment to, and hours of, laborers and mechanics employed under contract for public work. See Nat. Mun. Rev. (Mar., 1932), 189, note 21Google Scholar.

13 McCarthy v. Walter, 156 A. 772 (Oct., 1931).

14 People v. Beckman and Co., 179 N.E. 435 (Feb., 1932). See also People v. Stanley, 9 P. (2d) 288 (Colo., Feb., 1932), for objections to a statute requiring the inspection of cantaloupes and melons.

15 Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Public Service Comm., 240 N.W. 411 (Jan., 1932).

16 Edwards and Broune Coal Co. v. City of Sioux City, 240 N.W. 711 (Ia., Feb., 1932).

17 State v. Stone, 139 So. 328 (Ala., Jan., 1932). See also State v. County of Mower, 241 N.W. 60 (Minn., Feb., 1932).

18 Ward v. State., ibid., 416.

19 State v. Boloff, 4 P. (2d) 326 (Oct., 1931). For similar decisions, see State v. Hennessy, 195 P. 211 (Wash., 1921); State v. Moilen 167 N.W. 345 (Minn., 1918); Commonwealth v. Widovich, 145 A. 295 (Pa., 1929). In Commonwealth v. Lazar, 157 A. 701 (Dec., 1931), a communist was convicted under the Pennsylvania sedition act and a doctrine of “constructive sedition” was announced in the contention that the intent to use force or to destroy government may be inferred. For a criticism of the Boloff decision, and for citations to other cases, see Harv. Law Rev. (Mar., 1932), 927, note 45Google Scholar.

20 Doyle v. Hofstader, 177 N.E. 489 (Aug., 1931).

21 People v. Rockola, 178 N.E. 384 (Oct., 1931). See Ill Law Rev. (Feb., 1932), 734, note 25Google Scholar.

22 People v. Scornavache, 179 N.E. 909 (Feb., 1932).

23 See County of Los Angeles v. Industrial Accident Commission, 261 P. 295 (1927).

24 Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 5 P. (2d) 1 (1931).

25 Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 11 P. (2d) 1 (April, 1932).

26 Investor's Syndicate v. Porter, 52 F. (2d) 189 (Aug., 1931).

27 Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539 (1917); Caldwell v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co., 242 U.S. 559 (1917); Merrick v. Halsey and Co., 242 U.S. 568 (1917).

28 The corporate commission had previously regulated adequate service, honest weight, and purity, as well as the price, of ice, and this authority was upheld by the state supreme court in Oklahoma L. and P. Co. v. Corporation Commission, 220 P. 54 (1923).

29 262 U.S. 522 (1923).

30 273 U.S. 418 (1927).

31 278 U.S. 235 (1929).

32 Southwest Utility Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 52 F. (2d) 349 (Aug., 1931). For affirmance of this decision and a dissent by Justice Brandeis, see 52 S. Ct. 371.

33 Macmillan v. Ry. Comm. of Texas 51 F. (2d) 400 (July, 1931). The state legislature, in special session, passed a new conservation bill, Aug. 12, 1931, expressly prohibiting the commission from limiting production to the “existing market demands.”

34 177 U.S. 190 (1900).

35 254 U.S. 300 (1920). See also Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, 52 S. Ct. 103 (1931), and 18 Amer. Bar Asso. Jour. (Jan., 1932), 879Google Scholar.

36 Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm., 51 F. (2d) 823 (Aug., 1931).

37 Cf. Harv. Law Rev. (Jan., 1932), 557, note 45Google Scholar.

38 See decision of supreme court in Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission, 52 S. Ct. 559 (1932), sustaining the decision of the lower court except as to certain penal sections of the act.

39 McLeaish v. Binford, 52 F. (2d) 151 (Aug., 1931).

40 Sproles v. Binford, 56 F. (2d) 189 and 52 S. Ct. 581 (May, 1932).

41 Louis v. Boynton, 53 F. (2d) 471 (Oct., 1931).

42 Evansville v. Gaseteria, 51 F. (2d) 232 (June, 1931); Whitney v. Watson, 157 A. 78 (Nov., 1931).

43 Commonwealth v. Girard Life Ins., Co., 158 A. 262 (Jan., 1932). A city may not by ordinance prohibit prostitutes from appearing on the streets or in public buildings, because it unduly restricts their rights and liberties. Though committing offenses against the decencies of society and the prevailing code of morals, they are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. State v. Ashe, 161 8.B. 709 (N.Car., Jan., 1932).

44 Stephenson v. Binford, 53 F. (2d) 509 (1931). See dissenting opinion of D. J. Kennerly claiming that the Texas act is similar to the acts of Michigan, Washington, California, and Florida, which were declared void by the Supreme Court in Michigan v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570 (1925); Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925); Frost Trucking Co. v. R.R. Comm., 271 U.S. 583 (1926); Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (1931). The Supreme Court has not looked favorably upon the requirement for private carriers of a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Cf. 45 Harv. Law Rev. (Jan., 1932), 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 55 F. (2d) 347 (Dec., 1931), upholding a Kansas act regulating private and contract carriers for hire.

45 State v. Inland Forwarding Corp. 2 P. (2d) 888 (Sept., 1931).

46 Chicago, B. and Q. R. Co. v. Ill. Commerce Comm., 178 N.E. 157 (Oct., 1931).

47 Cf. also Southside Transp. Co. v. Commonwealth, 161 S.E. 895 (S. Car., Jan., 1932).

48 District Judge Hollzer, in Ashbury Truck Co. v. Ry. Comm. of Calif., 52 F. (2d) 263 (Aug., 1931).

49 See Crowell v. Benson, 52 S. Ct. 285 (1932), and article by Dickinson, John, “Crowell v. Benson: Judicial Review of Administrative Determinations of Questions of ‘Constitutional Fact’,” 80 Univ. of Pa. Law Rev. (June, 1932), 1055Google Scholar.

50 Great Northern Utilities Co. v. Public Service Comm., 293 P. 294 (1930).

51 Great Northern Utilities Co. v. Public Service Comm. 52 F. (2d) 802 (Aug., 1931). Cf. 80 Univ. of Pa. Law Rev. (Feb., 1932), 602Google Scholar.

52 For citation of cases, see 10 N. Car. Law Rev. (April, 1932), 318Google Scholar.

53 State v. Public Service Commission, 47 S.W. (2d) 102 (Mo., Nov., 1931).

54 City of Milwaukee v. Ry. Comm. 240 N.W. 165 (Jan., 1932). The federal holding in United Railways v. West, 280 U.S. 234 (1930), was cited and followed.

55 Doney v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 199 P. 432 (1932).

56 Montana Horse Products Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 7 P. (2d) 919 (Feb., 1932).

57 See opinion of Justice Roberts in Arizona Grocery Co. v. A.T.S.F. Ry. Co., 52 S. Ct. 183 (Jan., 1932). Justices Holmes and Brandeis dissented from this opinion and judgment, and approved the reasoning of Justice Hutcheson in Eagle Cotton Oil Co. v. Southern Railway Co. 51 F. (2d) 445 (July, 1931).

58 273 U.S. 510 (1927).

59 State v. Board of Commrs. of Allen Co. 177 N.E. 271 (Ohio, June, 1931).

60 Strand Amusement Co. v. Commonwealth 43 S.W. (2d) 321 (Nov., 1931).

61 Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926), invalidating a Pennsylvania statute preventing the use of shoddy in the manufacture of bedding.

62 People v. Carolene Products Co. 177 N.E. 698 (June, 1931).

63 L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo, 139 So. 121 (Fla., Jan., 1932).

64 See Washington v. Roberga, 278 U.S. 116 (1928).

65 Appeal of Perrin, 156 A. 305 (June, 1931). The reasoning of Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U.S. 526 (1917), was considered as controlling in this case. See this Review, Vol. XXII, p. 632Google Scholar.

66 Holden Co. v. Connor, 241 N.W. 915 (Mich., Apr., 1932). Justice Potter, speaking for the court, adopted and defended the dictum attributed to Supreme Court Justice Butler that we have “a government instituted principally for the protection of property.” The chief justice and two associate justices disagreed with the majority opinion and defended the view that other values, including æsthetic interests, deserve protection as well as property, according to the common law concepts.

67 Bolton v. Wharton, 161 S.E. 454 (S. Car., 1931).

68 Cooley on Taxation (4th ed.)., secs. 174 et seq.

69 State v. Township of Osawkee, 14 Kan. 418, 19 Am. Rep. 99, (1875); Lowell v. City of Boston, 111 Mass. 454, 15 Am. Rep. 39 (1873). For opinion contra, see State v. Nelson County, 45 N.W. 33 (1890).

70 In re Opinion of Judges, 240 S.W. 600 (Feb., 1932).

71 State v. Wienrich, 170 P. 942 (1918), ana Cobb v. Parnell, 36 S.W. (2a) 388 1931). Cf. 41 Tale Law Jour. (Mar., 1932), 779, noteGoogle Scholar.

72 Stone v. State, 136 So. 727 (Oct., 1931).

73 Blodgett v. Bennett, 158 A. 245 (Jan., 1932).

74 Rottschaefer, Henry, “Taxation of Transfers Intended to Take Effect in Possession or Enjoyment at Grantor's Death,” 14 Minn. Law Rev. (April and May, 1930), 453, 613Google Scholar; 49 A.L.R. 864 et seq. and 67 A.L.R. 1247 et seq.

75 Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339 (1929); Max v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238 (1930); Commissioner v. Northern Trust Co., 283 U.S. 782 (1931).

76 156 A. 518 (Oct., 1931).

77 Bankers' Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 260 U.S. 647 (1923).

78 Carlton v. Mathews, 137 So. 815 (Nov., 1931).

79 Amos v. Mathews, 126 So. 308 (1930). On the reasoning of this case, two justices dissented in the Carlton Case.

80 Boeing Air Transport v. Edelman, 51 F. (2d) 130 (June, 1931).

81 Eastern Air Transport, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 52 F. (2d) 456 (Sept., 1931). For approval of this decision by the Supreme Court, see opinion of Chief Justice Hughes, 52 S. Ct. 340. Helson and Randolph v. Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245 (1929), is distinguished as a tax “as the price of the privilege of using an instrumentality of interstate commerce” and not a general property tax or a tax upon purely local sales. Cf. 45 IIarv. Law Rev. (Dec., 31), 384Google Scholar.

83 Beta Xi Chapter of Beta Theta Pi v. City of New Orleans, 137 So. 204 (Oct., 1931).

84 Lodge No. 151 v. City of Houston, 44 S.W. (2d) 488 (Dec., 1931).

85 Ancient, etc., S.R. of Free Masonry v. Board of Co. Commrs., 241 N.W. 93 (Neb., Feb., 1932). Cf. p. 98, op. cit., for citations for and against the holding in this case.

86 State v. Wright, 140 So. 584 (Mar., 1932). See also Baker, Newman F., “Judicial Interpretation of Tax Exemption Statutes,” 8 Texas Law Rev. (April, 1929)Google Scholar, on the rule of strict construction and on exceptions to this rule.

87 City of Newman v. Atlanta Laundries, 162 S.E. 497 (Ga., Jan., 1932). For similar holding, see American Bakeries Co. v. City of Griffin, 162 S.E. 513 (Jan., 1932).

88 Beveridge v. Baer, 241 N.W. 727 (S. Dak., Mar., 1932).

89 Taylor v. Gehner, 45 S.W. (2d) 59 (Jan., 1932).

90 Cf. Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1925), in which it was held that “there is no power to tax a judge of a court of the United States on account of the salary prescribed for him by law.”

91 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 425 (1819).

92 See my articles, “Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada,” 28 Harv. Law Rev. (April, 1915), 565, 571Google Scholar, and “Judicial Interpretation of the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia,” 30 Harv. Law Rev. (April, 1917), 595, 602 et seqGoogle Scholar.

93 City of Columbia v. State Public Service Commission, 43 S.W. (2d) 813 (Nov., 1931). See also State v. Johnson, 137 So. 126 (Oct., 1931), and Roberts v. Commonwealth, 44 S.W. (2d) 577 (Dec., 1931).

94 Casner v. Meriwether, 4 P. (2d) 19 (Oct., 1931).

95 State Board of Health v. Willman, 45 S.W. (2d) 458 (Ky., Jan., 1932).

96 Dupree v. State, 44 S.W. (2d) 1097 (Jan., 1932).

97 State v. Avery, 207 P. 838 (Kan., 1922), and Collier v. State, 40 S.W. (2d) 455 (Ark., 1931).

98 State v. Portwood, 238 N.W. 879 (Nov., 1931).

99 State ex rel. Cyr v. Long, 140 So. 13 (Jan., 1932). For summary of opinion in similar cases, see 18 et seq. Three justices thought the court had jurisdiction and should have determined the issues raised.

100 Simkin v. City of Rock Springs, 237 P. 245 (1925).

101 State v. Johnson County High School, 5 P. (2d) 255 (Nov., 1931).

102 Prewitt v. Wilson, 46 S.W. (2d) 90 (Feb., 1932).

103 Scroggie v. Scarborough, 160 S.E. 596 (Sept., 1931). For opposite doctrine, see State v. Thomason, 221 S.W. 491 (Tenn., 1920), and Dixon v. Shaw, 253 P. 500 (Okla., 1927).

104 The Pocket-Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929).

105 Wood v. State Adm. Board, 238 N.W. 16 (Sept., 1931).

106 Koenig v. Flynn, 179 N.E. 705 (Feb., 1932).

107 State v. Polley, 127 N.W. 848 (1910). See also Koenig v. Flynn, supra.

108 State v. Holm, 238 N.W. 494 (Oct., 1931). Justices Dibell and Stone dissented. The governor's veto has been deemed inapplicable to federal constitutional amendments, In re Opinion of Justices, 107 A. 673 (1919). But in upholding the right of a referendum on a redistricting act, the Supreme Court of the United States regarded the legislative power relative to the election of congressmen as differing from the power relative to constitutional amendments.

109 Bohn v. Salt Lake City, 8 P. (2d) 591 (Jan., 1932).

110 Cf. Univ. of Pa. Law Rev. (June, 1932), 1167, note 80Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.