103 N.Y.S. 275 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1907
Lead Opinion
What is called the sanitary code of the city of Hew Y ork is made up of health ordinances adopted from time to time during a course of years by its board of health (Laws of 1873, ch. 335, sec, 82); and the charter of the new city enacted that this code, to the extent that it was then “ in force,” was and should continue to be binding and in. force in the new city (Laws of 1897, ch. 378, and of 1901, ch, 466, sec. 1172). Any violation thereof is made a misdemeanor by the said charter section. Section 56 of the said sanitary code is as follows:
The revocation of the relator’s- permits, and the refusal to permit him to sell milk thereafter, was on the ground that he and some; of those who work for him were convicted in a criminal court of selling milk which was below the standard fixed by another section' of this sanitary code ; and. the opposition to the .granting of the writ is put on that ground alone, i. e., that the board'of health has the power to disqualify a person from selling milk for his conviction in a criminal court of a violation of its ordinances fixing, the standard of pure milki
The precise question presented is, therefore; has the board of health power to revoke the license of a milk vender for'his being convicted in a criminal court of the offense of selling adulterated milk, and thereby and by refusing him a license thereafter inflict .on him a forfeiture of the right or a penalty of disqualification to carry on that business.
1..^-1 suppose it is within the power of the' state Legislature to pass an act to disqualify one to continue in a particular business, and to revoke his license therefor, as a penalty for his subsequent ■conviction of a violation of any law or ordinance regulating such business, as is done, for instance, in the statute for the licensing of master plumbers (Laws 1892;. ch. 602, sec. ■ 13)"; or, it may be enabling a municipal .common council or other competent body to pass an act call it ordinance, by-law or rule, as you will,’ for there is nothing in the name) to. the same effect. It suffices that there-is no-such (disqualifying act, state or local, in this case. Another section of- this code of sanitary ordinances fixes the standard of milk to be Sold, and the punishment prescribed by the Legislature for a violation thereof is, as we have seen, the general one for a misdemeanor, i. e., a fine not exceeding $50-0, or imprisonment not exceeding One year, or both (Penal Code, see. 15)1 The board of health has prescribed no punishment; nor has any municipal authority.- Ho penalty or sanction for the enforcement of - ordinances can be resorted to except those previously prescribed by statute, or by a local ordinance authorized by statute (Hart v. Mayor, etc., of Albany, 9 Wend. 571; Greater New York Athletic Club v. Wurster, 19
a. It is not necessary to now say whether the board of health has been given power by the Legislature' to enact an ordinance prescribing such penalty of disqualification upon such conviction, and, if so, whether such grant of power be valid. It suffices that no such ordinance exists. It should not escape notice in passing, however, that the said charter section 1172 empowers such board to “provide for the enforcement of the said sanitary.code by such fines, penalties, forfeitures or imprisonment as may by ordinance be prescribed.” If this language' had to be construed as purporting to give the board unrestricted power to, prescribe punishments of the nature, mentioned, it would mean that such board could prescribe the forfeiture of one’s estate as well as of his occupation, and any length of imprisonment or weight of fine, if the Legislature be capable of delegating such transcendent powers of sovereignty* But it expresses no such legislative intention, for it expressly limits such punishments to such •“ as may by ordinance be prescribed,” i. e., to such as there is power to prescribe by ordinance; and apart from the Legislature’s power of delegation, -the charter, as we have seen, sets limits to ordinance making on that head by making the offense of violating the said sanitary code a misdemeanor.
It has been suggested that there is such an ordinance (or “ rule,” as it is called, and that name is just as good if there be any who prefer it). This is based on an allegation in an affidavit read in opposition below, that “ it is the practice of the board of health ” to revoke the permits of persons twice convicted of selling adulterated milk, and to refuse permits to them thereafter, and that the board followed “ this rule ” in the present case. But the ordinances of the board of health have to be in writing and published like all statutes (sec. 1172, supra). There is no pretence that there is any such written “ rule,” by-law or ordinance. As to the “ practice ” of inflicting the penalty of disqualification, that is the very thing objected to as a usurpation of power.
b. Hor may we consider whether the Legislature may empower the board of health to revoke such a permit for cause after a hearing by it on notice, with or without a conviction in a criminal court, and by that fact disqualify the holder, for no such power has been
“ In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them-; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them ; the. judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them; to the end it’ may be a government of. laws and not of men-.”
g. Such an ordinance, or state statute, would have to “ require ” a hearing on notice to be valid, for the right to follow any of the ordinary occupations of life is protected by the constitutional right" of liberty and property, and therefore cannot be taken away except by judicial process, an essential ingredient of which is a requirement of a notice of trial (Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183).
2.—It. follows that inasmuch as the board of health had no power to inflict such forfeiture and disqualification as a punishment, it'.had no power to inflict it at all; unless, as is claimed, the. bare power of the Legislature to the board of health to require a permit or license' from it to sell milk, which is . all that its said ordinance in terms does, carries with if inherently to the said board the power to arbitrarily refuse such permit to whom it will, and thereby prohibit such business to whom it will; and that therefore a license or permit which might have been refused at will by such board in the first instance may be permanently revoked by it at will. How, if
Is it then indeed so that in this free government, saturated from the beginning with the very sap and juice of liberty, to borrow a phrase from a great constitutional writer (De Lolme on-Bri't. Const., 1853 ed., p. 20), we liav.e already relapsed to that degree of arbitrary power that one may not engage in the usual and necessary occupations of life, the selling of milk, butter, eggs, butcher’s meat, fish, tea, coffee, vegetables, fruit and so on (for they are all within the same principle and category), as matter of right, but only, as is the case in the few despotisms which still survive in the world, by the consent of government as matter of grace—such consent being revocable at will inasmuch as it may be refused at will ? The making of such an assertion anywhere in the Anglo-Saxon world, ever an irritable body on questions of the rights of the individual, arouses instant challenge, for it strikes at the foundation of free government. The final judicial decision in this country in which such a ' claim shall be for the first time upheld will be momentous. It will mark the year in our history when free government had run its coarse with us and the decline to government paternalism or despotism, which cost past ages so much of blood and property to get rid of, set in. The learning and wide research of counsel have not been able to discover any actual decision winch, read with true discrimination and application, supports such a claim. If there is to be such a precedent, we must make it this day.
a. The ordinary useful and necessary occupations of life — the usual occupations and businesses of citizens generally — are free to all men as of right, and may not be arbitrarily prohibited to any one who chooses to engage in them even by the Legislature, let alone by the executive or the judicial branch of government. They may only be regulated, which is a very different thing, and that only by the Legislature directly, or through power conferred by it. Such power to regulate them exists where the safety, welfare or necessary comfort of society requires such regulation. The power of
b. It does not help the contention to the contrary to say that the power of executive officials to arbitrarily refuse or revoke such a license; at will must be exercised reasonably, and is subject in that respect, to judicial review. If that were so we should have the same case still, for the Legislature can no more confer such power on the judicial than on the executive branch of government. The courts must not forget that arbitrary power is not made lawful, although they may flatter themselves. that it' is made lenient ór benevolent, by being subjected to their review in its exercise. ■ .
c. You may not build a house in a city, or deliver building mater rial to your lot, or connect your house plumbing with the water main in the street, and so on through a list of things, without a, permit or license;' and yet no one will say upon second thought that such a license may be refused to you at', will. If you comply with all reasonable requirements or regulations prescribed, 'as conditions precedent you are entitled to it. These are simple instances, it is true, but the present case* once understood, is equally plain; We-have before.us an occupation which may not. be arbitrarily prohibited, but may only be regulated by the Legislature or by its authority by reasonable conditions and fequffiements, and which may be subjected to a permit or license to that end and to that extent only, and not for the purpose of prohibition at all.
(1. The. matter is one. in which it is ‘difficult to get astray if a certain distinction be kept in mind and easy to get astray if it be not. There are occupations which are not and never have been free, such as the sale of intoxicating drink,, the storage of explosives, the slaughter of cattle, public..shows or plays; such as Cause great noise or vile odors; those of common carrier, mail carrier, innkeeper,
These prohibitable occupations should not be confused with the 'multitude of free and lawful occupations which cannot be prohibited, but may in some cases be regulated for like reasons of the general safety, welfare and comfort. Ho one would think of assigning the sale of milk or any of the other ancient and ordinary occupations of life, like those already enumerated, to the former class. They cannot be prohibited as inherently noxious to society, for they are not; nor restricted to a limited number for the general welfare, for the general welfare does not require it, but the contrary-, in order that the economic laws of trade and prices may not be dislocated or thwarted ; or for pertaining to the public service or a public use, or as affected with a public interest, for they are not of that class; but they may be subjected to regulation, and in cases of occupations requiring for the safety of the community scientific skill,.
e. And. such regulation is invariably effected by means' of the requirement of licenses or permits to engage. in such occupations, that being, however, only a means of affording notice to the public authorities of all persons who do so, in order to enable them to exact the reasonable qualifications or conditions imposed, and there-after make the necessary inspections to enforce the regulating ordinances or laws by criminal prosecutions, or the collection of the penalties prescribed or allowed to be prescribed by statute, or in any other lawful way.
f. There are thus two distinct systems of licensing which must not be confused together, (1) the one of occupations which may be prohibited by the Legislature altogether, and therefore by dispensing power tolerated and allowed to many or to a few, as the Legislature may see fit, and of occupations that may be prohibited by it partly, viz., in a locality, or in excess of a limited number; and (2) the other of occupations that may not be prohibited at all, and which is wholly for the purpose of regulation. In the same way licenses of free and lawful occupations are resorted to for taxation, and no one may be refused a license who tenders the tax. To "enter . upon a consideration of this subject without this distinction in mind would be like putting to sea in a rudderless ship.
g. If our executive officers could arbitrarily restrict the number • of persons to carry on the ordinary and necessary vocations of life.
3.— If the foregoing contention were not true, namely, that the Legislature has not the power to arbitrarily prohibit the ordinary useful and necessary occupations of life, .or to confer power to do so, to say that the mere power given to a board of health by the Legislature to impose the requirement of" a license for them implies and carries with it power to revoke such a license at will, would still be erroneous as against the rule that official powers may be' conferred by statute only by express words or necessary implication. It was never true even of licenses to sell intoxicating drinks as we all know. The power of licensing boards or officers or of courts to
4. —The argument that the board of health may not be deemed restricted to the enforcement of the punishment prescribed by statute, or -by its own lawful ordinances, for the violation-.of. its ordinances, because that would leave.it possible for an offender to offend again even while being prosecuted for a prior offense, or after his-conviction thereof, if his permit be not revoked, would be a strange one for a court to listen to, much less suggest, as showing that the board has the power to revoke. Ho one could indulge in it without forgetting himself. If the severe punishment of one year’s imprisonment and $500 fine be not enough to secure obedience to the' sanitary ordinances of the city of Hew York— an incredible pretence— and i the "board of health be without power to prescribe a severer one, that is a consideration to be. addressed to the Legislature, not to the courts — nor to ;the executive department of government.
5. — An examination of the argument or legal thesis which is opposed.to the foregoing discloses, as it seems to me, the- continual confusion and misapplication, of what the Legislature has power to do-with what executive or administrative, officials may do.. The cáse of the latter always is, not what the Legislature may do., or empower them to do, but what it has done, or empowered them to do, and then whether they have acted within the power given: It is worse than uséless, for instance, because it is misleading, to cite eases like Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co. (94 U. S. 535) for the proposition that a license or permission is always revocable by the officials who grant it; because the question there decided was. only that the state, the Legislature, may by statute make licenses revocable, and not that mere power to administrative or executive
6.—• It does not seem necessary to point out that the case of People ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr (199 U. S. 552) has no application to the present case. There the validity of this same ordinance was the only question ,up, the test being made by means of the writ of habeas corpus by one under arrest for selling milk without a permit, and who sought his discharge on the sole ground that the ordinance' was void. It Was for-him to have compelled the giving of a permit to him, or the reinstatement of his old permit, by xvrit of mandamus; for the requirement of a permit is valid as within the power of regulation, and a permit is therefore necessary, the same as a requirement of a permit to build a house, or to extend a water-pipe from the street main to your house, for instances out of many, is valid and a permit therefor necessary, even though it cannot be lawfully refused, being permitted not for prohibition but only for regulation. There is no question made here of the validity of this . ordinance. The learned judge who wrote the opinion in the Lieberman case several times speaks of the power “ to grant or withhold ” licenses or permits, using the phrase as though power to grant is only a corollary of power to refuse, which, is quite true in the case of occupations which may be prohibited, but not at all true in the case of occupations which may not be prohibited, as has already been pointed out — a distinction which the learned 'judge himself would have been the first to make if there had been before him a case call
7.— Since the foregoing was written the decision in the case of Metropolitan Milk & Cream Co. v. City of New York (113 App. Div. 377; 186 N. Y. 533)-has been published. That case, was an action for damages against the city and its department of health The complaint was that they damaged the plaintiff by preventing it from selling its milk in the city óf He w T ork. A defense was pleaded in substance that the creamery or dairy of the plaintiff from which it. brought its-.milk to the city was in a filthy, unwholesome and unhealthy condition, and that its milk was in the same condition,' and that for that reason tlie department of health, after giving a hearing . to the plaintiff on the said facts on notice, revoked the plaintiff’s-permit and prevented it from bringing such milk into- the city and selling it. Such defense was. held on demurrer, not to be insufficient ■ on its. face, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals without opinion. How, without regard -to1 the power of the board to refuse a permit at will,, or to revoke one at- will, it is obvious that the pleaded' defense was good, for no one can be liable in damages for preventing another from doing anything that is a crime, which the sale of -unwholesome milk is. We cannot therefore assume that the Court of Appeals- put its decision on any other ground, in the absence of any -stated ground by it. Hor, are the observations in the opinion of the Appellate Division based on the revocation of the permit relevant or binding here, for they had reference to revocation in that case on a hearing on notice by the board of health on the assumption that such a hearing could be had by itwhereas in the presentíase. there was no such hearing, and none could be had because none was prescribed. . It seems to have been taken for granted by the learned judge there writing .that there is some statute or ordinance prescribing such a hearing-and granting such power of - revocation and disqualification, .whereas we now know there is not.
The order should be affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
I am for affirmance because there was no ordinance or regulation of the board which authorized the revocation for the cause returned. Administrative policy in this case is not equivalent to an ordinance. I might stop here, but for the fact that a general discussion has been made." Bacon, Lord Yerulam, says: “For many times the things deduced to judgment may be meum and tuum when the reason and consequence thereof may trench to point of estate.” As I differ from thé opinion of my brother Gaynor in many things, and from others in this court from their conclusion, I shall give my reasons for dissent. An eminent English judge,. Parke, J., in Mirehouse v. Rennell (1 Cl. & F. 527, 546) said: “ Our common-law system consists in the applying to new combinations of circumstances those rules of law which we derive .from legal principles and judicial precedents; and for the sake of attaining uniformity, consistency and certainty, we must apply those rules, where they are not plainly unreasonable and inconvenient, to all cases which arise; and- we are not at liberty to reject them, and to abandon all analogy to them, in those to which they have not yet been judicially applied, because we 'think that the rules are not as convenient and" reasonable as we ourselves could have devised. It appears to me to be of great importance to keep this principle of decision steadily in view, not merely for the determination of the particular case, but for the interests of law as a science.” (Cited in Dicey, Law and Opinion in England, p. 364.)
I think that this board of health has -power to enact an ordinance, or resolution of general application, to the effect that its permit to sell milk shall be revoked by it, if the holder or his servants be convicted in the courts of selling adulterated milk, and that such ordinance need not provide that notice must be given to the holder after such conviction before such revocation can be made. I think this ordinance would not offend against Constitution or "laws; The obligation of a contract would not be impaired. Property would
What is the purpose and the effect of such ordinance ? Milk is almost an universal food, .and for the very young the principal if not the exclusive food. It is capable of adulteration beyond the detection of the ordinary consumer. If adulterated it may not only be impaired but be positively dangerous to health and to life! The dweller in a great city cannot investigate the origin, the collection or the processes which result in the sale of his daily food to íiim as a unit of many millions. He who buys milk for daily consumption cannot seek out the herd, or view the dairy, or investigate the channels or become acquainted personally with the agents whereby the milk finally reaches his table. And, hence,' government steps in to regulate the sale of this commodity by the requirement of a standard. The law now protects the consumer by punishing the seller of bad milk. It is'decided that the regulation of such business by requirement that it must be carried on pursuant to a permit of the board of health of the city of Hew York is a lawful and reasonable exer-. cise of the police power in the protection of the public health. (People ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 175 N. Y. 440; 199 U. S. 552.) To deny the privilege of sale to those who have shown themselves improper persons to traffic in such food is a practical method of preserving the public health. In the last analysis the life and health of the consumer are preserved rather than the livelihood of the seller. By such an ordinance an individual would be deprived of his permit to sell milk perforce of a provision (of course applicable alike to all other holders'of permits) because he is an unfit person in that lie has been convicted-of selling adulterated milk. Government is for all the people, not for an individual, so as to assure to him continuance, in a pursuit which may be dangerous and even death-dealing.
1. In Polinsky v. People (73 N. Y. 65), Andrews, J., for the court, says : “ That the Legislature in the exercise of. its constitu: tional authority may lawfully confer on boards of health the power to enact sanitary ordinances, having the force of law within the districts over which their jurisdiction extends, is not an open qnes
2. Such power has been conferred upon this board in the Greater Hew York charter by the Legislature of this State. (People ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 175 N. Y. 440.)
3; (a) Generally, the power to license implies the power of revocation. In Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co. (94 U. S. 535, 540) the court say : “ The corrective power to revoke or recall a permission is a necessary consequence of the main power. A mere license by a State is always revocable. Rector v. Philadelphia, 24 How. [U. S.] 300; People v. Roper, 35 N. Y. 629; People v. Commissioners, 47 N. Y. 50.
(5) Metropolitan Milk & Cream Co. v. City of New York (113 App. Div. 377) decides that such permits are revocable by -the department of. health, and that the department was not restricted to a criminal prosecution of a licensee selling unwholesome milk.' In that case' the city and the department answered separately. In paragraph 8 of each answer the defendant pleaded that by virtue of the. laws of the State of Hew York and the Sanitary Code of the city of Hew York the department of health of the city had authority and power to prevent the plaintiff from keeping and selling therein impure, milk, and also that after investigation it had found that the plaintiff was shipping and sending such milk to the city to be sold, whereupon the department, after notice to the plaintiff and a hearing, revoked the license of licenses, “ as it had' a right to do and ..as it was its public duty to do and not otherwise.” The following questions were certified to the Court of Appeals-: “ Is the.separate defense contained in the answer of the defendant The City of Hew York ”.(or mutatis rrmtmbdis the department of health of the city of Hew York) “ insufficient in law upon the face thereof?”' That court affirmed the order, and answered the questions certified in the, negative (186 N. Y. 533). I regard it as settled, then, by the highest court of tlfis State, that the department of health lias- the -power to revoke permits issued for the sale óf milk in that city. The principle is stated in Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (7th ed. p. 887): “ Dealers may also-be compelled to take out a license, and the license may be refused to a person of bad reputation., or taken away from a party, detected in dishonest practices.” The liberty to
4. If this board has the power of revocation for sale of had milk, it can express that power by ordinance. The permits in the Metropolitan Milk & Cream Co. Case (supra) were revoked on the ground that the plaintiff had furnished and had sold impure milk. Unless there could be revocation by the board only after actual investigation by the board itself and its determination .thereupon that the relator had twice sold impure milk, I can seenoobjection to an ordinance based upon such offending. Indeed, section 1172 of the charter (Laws of 1901, chap. 466, as amd. by Laws of 1904, chap.
5. The ordinance is based upon the ¡imposition that he who has sold impure milk is an unfit person to hold a permit to sell milk. In resting the ordinance upon a conviction for the very act which the board seeks to prevent, the -board but applies the doctrine of res judicata. For the conviction was, as between the State and the individual, an adjudication of the fact that the relator had done the thing prohibited. (Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189.) The board would have a right to ordain that such convictions should be sufficient evidence of the unfitness of the relator to hold such a license. (Hawker v. New York, supra; Sprayberry v. City of Atlanta, 87 Ga. 120.) The ordinance is founded upon an adjudication that the relator had sold impure milk, as much as if the board or department had investigated the alleged offense and had found it. Surely a conviction of the offense in the criminal court may be as cogent proof that the relator had violated'the law as a determination by the board upon its own investigation. In Hawker v. New York (supra) the statute in effect made the conviction evidence of the absence of .the requisite good character. The court held that if. the State might require good character as a condition, ■“ it may rightfully determine what shall be the evidences of that character.” . It said, per Bbeweb, J.: “We do not mean to. say that it has an arbitrary power in the matter, or that it can make a conclusive test of that which has. no relation to character, but. it may take .whatever, according.to the experience of mankind, reasonably tends to prove the fact and make it a test. County Seat of Linn County, 15 Kansas, 500, 528. Whatever is ordinarily connected with bad character, or indicative of it, may- be prescribed by the Legislature as conclusive evidence thereof. It is not the province of the courts to say that other tests would be more satisfactory, or that the naming of other qualifications would be more conducive to the desired
Tiie fact that there would be an ordinance, not a statute, does not affect the application of the principle. An ordinance pursuant to the authority of the Legislature has like force within the limits of its operation as a statute. (Polinsky v. People, supra ; Village of Carthage v. Frederick, 122 N. Y. 268 ; Dillon Mun. Corp. [4th ed.]. § 308 and note; Heland v. City of Lowell, 3 Allen, 407.) In Sprayberry v. City of Atlanta (supra) the court held that the common council, in its power to regulate the retail of ardent spirits, and its then discretion to issue license to retail or to withhold the same, might pass an ordinance to the effect that the mayor and common council could forfeit a license, and that a conviction of a violation of a State statute in relation to the sale of ardent spirits shall work an immediate revocation of the license.
6. Notice-is not essential. The doctrine of Stuart v. Palmer (74 N. Y. 183) does not apply. . The permit is not property in the sense that such a revocation thereof is the taking of property without due process in that there is no notice thereof. “ The popular understanding of the word license undoubtedly is, a permission to do something which without the license would not be allowed. * * * - This is also the legal meaning.” (Ccolet, J., in Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 419.) “ A license is not property. It is a mere temporary permit to do what otherwise would he illegal, issued in the exercise of the police power.” (Words & Phrases Judicially Defined,' 4137, citing Lantz v. Hightstown, 46 N. J. Law, 107; Voight v. Board of Excise, 59 id. 358.) The license or permit is not a contract. ( Commonwealth v. Kinsley, 133 Mass. 578.) In Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie (34 N. Y. 657) the court, speaking of an excise license, say : “ These licenses to sell liquors are not contracts between the State and the persons licensed, giving the latter vested rights, protected on general principles and by the Constitution of the United States against subsequent legislation, nor are they property in any legal or constitutional sense. They have neither the qualities of a contract or of property, but are merely temporary permits to do what otherwise would be an offense against a general law. They form a
Moreover, if the ordinance provided that revocation would follow upon such conviction, the holder of the permit would he bound to take-notice that such was the law. (Heland v. City of Lowell, 3 Allen, 407; Dillon, supra, § 416, note; McQuillin’s Municipal Ordinances, § 22, and authorities cited; Baldwin v. Smith, 82 Ill. 162.) In the last case the court say: “ There is' no condition in the license and no reference to any ordinance of the town authorizing its revocation for cause, yet it must be held to have been granted subject to such ordinances of the town as had a legal existence at the time the same was granted, and such as were within the competency of the town authorities to enact.”
. 7. The revocation by ordinance would not be an exercise of judicial power, but would be incidental to the administrative power. (Matter of Armstrong v. Murphy, No. 2, 65 App. Div. 126 ; State ex rel. Drake v. Doyle, 40 Wis. 175 ; State v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 34 Minn. 387; State ex rel. Granville v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 123; McGehee, supra.) ■ In the case of Public Clearing House v. Coyne (194 U. S. 497) the court say (pp. 508, 509): “ That due process of. law does not necessarily require the interference of the j.udi_ cialpower is laid down hi many cases and by many eminent writers upon the subject of constitutional limitations. Murray’s Lessee v.
It is true that the effect of the rule is to bar the seller from continuance in that traffic. But that is but a consequence of the working of the rule, not the object of it. The ordinance would not- be for the punishment of the seller for his past offense, but for the protection of the buyers. In Hawker v. New York (supra) the statute deprived the plaintiff of the right to practice medicine perforce of conviction of a crime, and the point was made that it was a further punishment. It was met by the court, per Brewer, J., who said : “ That the form in which this legislation is cast -suggests the idea of the imposition of an additional punishment for past offenses is not conclusive. We must look at the substance and not the form, and the statute should be regarded as though it in terms declared that one who liad violated the criminal laws of the State should be deemed of such bad character as to be unfit to prac- ' tice medicine, and that the record of a trial and conviction, should be conclusive evidence of such violation. All that is embraced in these propositions is condensed into the single clause of the statute, and it means that and nothing more; The-State is not seeking to further punish a criminal, but only to protect its citizens from physicians of bad character. The vital matter is not the conviction, but the violation of law. The former is merely the prescribed evidence of the latter.” (See, too, The Queen v. Vine, L. R. 10 Q. B. 195.) That convictions are not a full deterrent is shown in this case, inasmuch as there were four convictions at different times, extending over a period of a little over three years.
To my mind there would be nothing-sinister in this ordinance, or nothing contrary to the spirit or the letter of law. In these days of adulteration of food, when, as the poet sings,
“ Chalk and alum and plaster are sold to the poor for bread,
And the spirit of murder works in the very means of life,”
it would be a wholesome measure in furtherance of the principle of the greatest good of the greatest number.
Woodward, JV, concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.'
People ex rel. Davies v. Comrs. of Taxes of N. Y., 47 N. Y. 501.— [Rep.
See Laws of 1893, chap. 338; §§ 20, 22, as amd. by Laws of 1900, chap. 101; Laws of 1904, chaps. 480, 566, and Laws of 1905, chap. 603; Id. § 87, as amd. by Laws of 1901, chap. 656.— [Rep.