*1 Hall. PEOPLE v. HALL. Electricity—Statutes—Equal Constitutional Protection Law — —Delegation Legislative of Power. providing licensing Statute and. con- electricians electrical tractors, supervision inspection and and of electrical and minimum an adoption standards therefor held, administrative board unrea- unconstitutional, because exempting sonable classification in from some installations requirements, per Bushnell, license and Chandler, Sharpe, JJ., discriminatory because making relatively toas contractors small apparent justification, per without installations Butzel, J., uncertainty and legislative delegation C. because and power private ato persons prescribing association penal minimum standards breach of which constitutes offense, per Wibst, Potter, JJ. McAllister, North, (Act 228, No. Acts Pub. Appeal Livingston; from (Joseph H.), Collins J. January (Docket Submitted 12, 1939. No. 98, Cal- 40,256.) September endar No. Decided 5, 1939.
Ralph J. Hall was convicted violation of Act providing No. Pub. Acts for licensing supervision inspec- electricians wiring. tion of electrical Reversed without a new trial. Attorney Thomas Read, General, E. Edmund
Shepherd Maggio, and Andrew De Assistants Attor- ney people. General, E. Fletcher, Reed for defendant. Michigan Reports. appeal Upon de- court, circuit J. Sharpe, installing cer-
fendant was convicted offense wiring in a residence with- *2 tain fixtures and electrical having required obtained the license Act out first Supp. (Comp. 1935, No. Pub. Acts 1935 Laws 228, seq.). seq., § § Ann. 18.191 et De- 8690-1 Stat. et but moved violation, fendant admitted the acts upon ground proceedings that the the to dismiss under the and above act is unconstitutional State following' for reasons: Federal Constitutions “a) That it contains unreasonable classification wiring electricians in that discriminates between companies light, power, and and communication for those employers; private wiring for and privately ‘ pow- unlawfully delegates legislative ‘b) That it purely board; administrative er to a delegation “c) unlawful That the contains act judicial power board; to an administrative ‘‘ liberty d) deprives and citizens That the act process property law; due without delegates “e) blanket, unrestricted That arbitrary power police administrative and board; vague “f) and uncertain That act is uncertainty; is for terms and void requires “g) That the act certain electricians in the in order to wire State a license secure requirements securing Michigan, not license such arbitrary being and defined to exclusion refusing granting discriminating officialaction licenses; said object, “h) than one That embraces the act more expressed title; and which are “i) nonexistent That the act based impossible wiring definement and and code interpretation.” The trial court held the act constitutional and con- defendant, and sentenced from which sentence victed appeals and contends that the above act defendant v. Hall. given is unconstitutional for reasons mo- tion to dismiss. provides: No.
Act Pnb. Acts # * * wiring In act, 1. “Section (a) wiring, generating All means includes: equipment, capacity, of not over ten kilowatt fixtures, appliances, appurtenances in connection with generation, the trical between distribution utilization of elec energy potential thirty volts or with a more building, within or on a resi conductors, including dence or structure, service entrance * * * as defined the national electric code. * * * corporation person, 5. No firm or shall “Sec. engage contracting,’ business ‘electrical person, corporation unless such firm or shall have received from the electrical administrative board, municipal or from a *3 of electrical board examiners, an electrical contractor’s license and a certificate any corporation, person, therefor, shall firm or nor except person duly employed by licensed and and working under the of a holder of an direction elec- any trical in contractor’s'license, manner undertake any wiring; except to execute that no li- any required cense shall be the in order execute * * * following classes work: “(b) repair The installation, alteration or operation equipment signals, for the or the trans- intelligence, mission where such work is an inte- gral part system of the communication owned and operated by telephone/or telegraph company in rendering duly telephone its authorized service as a telegraph company; and/or “(c) repair alteration or installation, The wiring generation primary for electric and dis- dis- secondary current, tribution of electric or the system up including tribution to and the meters, part integral system where such work is an operated by light power owned and company electric rendering duly service; authorized Reports. Michigan “ operation, main- Any (g) involved work equip- repairing servicing or theatrical
tenance, ment such motion stereopti- projectors, picture lights systems, spot lights, public flood address cons, any stage equipment; or work other electrical or done engineer.” any operating supervision of licensed under the objection first is that the
The raised defendant it dis- unreasonable classification that contains act criminates between wiring light, electricians for companies power and communication those wir- ing private privately employers. for In his adds the court, before this further brief defendant requires reasons, i.e., section of act where licenses only wiring the load car- for electricians capac- wiring “not over such ten kilowatt ried thereby high wiring, ity” permitting where tension public danger great, to the without the elec- the tricians any doing holding such work a license of relieving statute and such elec- under class this obtaining permits wiring or from such tricians paying inspection for the fees such exempts installations; and that in- “work operation, servicing volved repairing maintenance, equipment,” of theatrical people considering ques- that in contend only tion of unreasonable classification, reasons forth in motion set defendant’s to dismiss can properly appeal; considered presented having other reasons not been to the trial *4 passed upon court nor him cannot be considered here. repeatedly question held
We have
that
where
constitutionality
presented
of a statute is
to
not
ques
court
below,
the court
not consider the
will
appeal,
Greening Nursery
199
Co.,
on
v.
tion
Maurer
question
522;
Mich.
jurisdiction,
and that in the
of the
absence
particular provisión
of the Consti-
19
v. Hall.
offends,
which it is claimed the act
must be
tution,
certainty,
pointed
v.
out with reasonable
McBride
case at
However,
Mich. 525.
Jacob,
bar,
objected
constitutionality
defendant
in
to
the act
ground
the lower court
of unreasonable
only points
and he now
out further
classification,
reasons
support
adopt
claim,
to
his
We
the lan-
County
guage
Auditors,
in Fitch v. Manitou
Board of
“In of this act) certain advanced, certain reasons were proposi- arguments urged. would be It a monstrous say may other not be advanced tion to in this urged, that reasons stronger arguments, if court, discovered, against proposed be taken. the action We think this court should to hear do decline may arguments, though influenced these and be they brought be that if had attention of been to the judge the trial ent. case an case and his decision would have been differ- generally arguments true in a that the being in this made has had court, after counsel opportunity thoroughly more understand his the authorities, examine are different and they than better were the court below.” adopted Michigan concerning The rule classi- may fication be found Cook Co. Flush- v. Coffee ing, 267 Mich. 131, 134, where we said: “The of the United fourteenth amendment States Michigan § 1 of Constitution and article Con give right equal pro stitution of the same Lahr, tection laws. Naudzius Mich. 30 N. A. L. R. C. C. A. ‘‘ provisions These constitutional do not mean that application there can’be no classification in the only statutes but ordinances, classifi- cation distinguishing must be based natural char- acteristics and the bear must relation reasonable object legislation. *5 Michigan Reports.
20 290 ‘‘ given Lindsley The standards of classification (31 Natural Co., v. Carbonic Gas 220 78 61, U. S. Sup. 160), quoted Ann. 337, Ct. Cas. 1912C, were supra, pp. court in Lahr, Naudzius v. at 223: “ equal protection '1. The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment power classify adoption does not from the State the of take police laws, scope of but admits of the exercise a wide of discretion only any regard, that and avoids what is done when it is without arbitrary. purely A reasonable basis and therefore is 2. classifica- having against some reasonable basis does not offend that clause
tion merely nicety because it is not made with mathematical or because practice such a law is called in inequality. 3. When the classification in in it results some reasonably question, if state of facts it, of that state of be conceived that would sustain the existence can must be assumed. 4. One who at the time the law was enacted facts carry must burden of show- classification such a law assails essentially upon any basis, ing it does not rest reasonable but " arbitrary.' Judge Kelley Detroit, In Court v. Recorder’s of of 273) (53 A. L. R. said: we 239 Micb. is that of classification “The fundamental rule arbitrary, must be based substantial not be shall germane purpose to the distinctions law.” electricity proper regulation exercise is a
The Chicago, police Berry City power. See (151 Ill. 536 N. E. Pickersgill, Law, 105 N. In J. Becker v. 859), said: Atl. the court ‘‘ prosecutor of counsel assertion in The broad deprives question the latter his ordinance support rights property, no from personal finds reading the results plain ordinance. One a of society, organized being under a member yielding unquestionably laws, Constitution rights for the absolute of certain the individual joins. community he which benefit and welfare suprema populi abso- natural and lex. Such Salus possessed rights become the individual which
lute society, purely relative, him member civil as a v. Hall. subject regulation. safety and and are therefore *6 general community require welfare the that occupations, certain businesses and because their dangerous general injure safety, tendencies the to health or public, require regulation, welfare the requirement carry and, the of a hence, on license occupations, imposition or such businesses and the nothing for a tax are than revenue more the the proper police power safeguard of the exercise community, legislation permissible.” such is City In Co. Atlanta, Southeastern Electric 400), 179 514 Ga. E.S. the court said: “The ordinance is of the above also violative con- provisions (14th stitutional amendment Fed- Constitution), imposing on eral because electrical standing prescribed contractors the burden of ex- exempts per- util- amination, while from such burden equipment installing ‘public the same for sons ity companies telephone central stations, such as or telegraph companies or their who subsidiaries, have employ may employ specialists in to or their hereafter repair, buildings equipment maintain located install, or property their own equipment or on their or service property,’ pro- on
located customers’ as exempts in section 33. vided The ordinance further utility companies by provides: section which systems starting ‘Before work on installation for. lay-out completed volts, over 600 detail shall superintendent the be submitted to of electrical af- approval provided, obtained; fairs and his however, apply public utility companies, that this shall not telephone telegraph such as central or com- stations, panies installing equip- and their subsidiaries, when property equipment ment on their own service property thereby of their discrim- customers;’ inating against coming within contractors purview by denying ordinance, said them the * ** rights privileges. same The difference between electrical installations in above the instances Reports. Michigan sep- support
mentioned, is as will so substantial purpose imposing for the said classifications arate exempting other, for on one and burden just hazardous work when done reason by by subject exempt class as when done class.”
An examination of the mentioned act discloses requires that section licenses for electricians wiring only wiring where load carried such necessarily capacity.” is “not over ten kilowatt follows the load carried such if capacity, required no ten license is over kilowatt wiring. is a Nor installation re- such license quired to execute the work order mentioned (b), (c), (g) of section subsections *7 The of the is of reliev- result above sections act. ing obtaining for a from license certain electricians opera- wiring of or for classes installation and servicing repairing tion, maintenance, or of theatri- equipment. cal appears necessity pro- to us that is a there public exempted to
tection classes as well as in of a is re- the classes work license which justify quired. To a must classification there such appear regulation reason for the some substantial equally applicable one kind to of work not opinion here made other. In our classification upon is not real distinction based or substantial police power, having and for safety. valid not a exercise is prevention public purpose of fire and unconstitutionality the above claims Other under our deci- presented us, have to been but unnecessary find to discuss sion we it them. judgment a new reversed, without trial. be No costs will allowed. J., J., Chandler, with
Bushnell, concurred Sharpe, J. 23 v. Hall. No. Pub. Acts
Butzel, O. J. Act Supp. seq., (Comp. § 8690-1 Laws et Stat. seq.) challenged creating un- § et Ann. 18.191 ‘‘ wiring constitutional of electric classification ’’ capacity. over kilowatt While neither the Con- ten nor of stitution United States the State Michigan requires pos- that a statute embrace all might applicable, be it sible evils to which it presumed will that it is aimed at evil where Judge (Kelley is most felt Recorder’s v. 273]), [53 Mich. A. L. R. Detroit, Court of apparent this statute relation classifies without weight Hiving presump- the evil involved. full to the validity, manifestly tion it is of constitutional still impose system licensing strict unreasonable regulation persons installing or generating equipment than of less ten kilowatt capacity, allowing persons time, at same while, equipment carrying larger installing a much elec- consequently, dangerous more and, one, trical to load, from be free the restrictions statute. regu- great not a index the evil size is reasonable Where cannot discriminate between lated, the law Engel O’Malley, 219 U. S. the small. See capacity (31 Sup. Even if size electrical Ct. regarded proper index to the dan- can be here as a gers public through unskilled and defective to the equipment, and installation construction *8 arising greater that the evil would seem obvious wattage greater from one to be cured. would dangerous phase regulating more Instead legislature has chosen installation, larger regulate dangerous. contractor, the less The carrying erecting thousands of which volts, wires person immediately with whom electrocute would installing equipment they which or contact, came devastating readily is defective, fires if cause could supervision, in- the farmer who from while immune lighting system house his to illuminate stalls Delco Michigan Reports. compelled and barn competency to establish his inspection authority do the (sec- work before the [e]). tion subd. 5, given justification explanation
areWe no arbitrary record or capricious briefs for this showing distinction. There is no stallation is in defective equipment where the rare is over ten capacity dangerously frequent kilowatt while where capacity. legislature not over such The has not ex empted impose the former class to on it more stringent regulation. regulation No such kind exists. distinction erected in the statute purpose serves no but to restrict electrical con making relatively tractors small installations and to give immunity doing larger propor to those work of tions. is such discrimination that is outlawed equal protection clause of the Constitution. See La. Gantz, State v. South. 24 L. R. A. [N. S.]
For I these reasons concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice Sharpe. (concurring reversal). J. I can and do North, holding
concur in Mr. Justice Sharpe’s that the act (Act [Comp. here involved No. 228, Pub. Acts 1935 Supp. seq., § Laws 8690-1 et § Stat. Ann. 18.191 seq.]) prepared et but I am unconstitutional, agree assigned support with reasons he has of his conclusion.
My Brother has detailed the numerous reasons grounds upon constitutionality which the of Act challenged, they repeated. No. 228 is need not be par- He holds the act invalid because he finds two depends the classification, ticulars which necessity obtaining engage a license to in electric wiring, upon any “is not based real or substantial police power, distinction and is not a valid exercise *9 v. Hall. having purpose prevention for its fire public safety.” holding
The above relates in first instance to provides: section 1 of the act which wiring; In “Electrical definition. this elec- act, wiring (a) wiring, trical means and includes: All generating equipment, of not over ten kilowatt capacity, connection appurtenances appliances, fixtures, generation, util- with distribution and energy thirty potential ization of volts or building, with a or on a between within conductors, more including residence or structure, service entrance as defined national electric code.” my
For reasons him stated Brother holds this provision improper embodies classification. Evi- dently legislature which enacted the statute did not think record so, before us contains no testimony, neither does disclose sus- facts, taining contrary conclusion. For that reason alone appellant’s not, we should this record, sustain uneonstitutionality par- claim of act in ticular. <c challenged with 'When a statute conflict funda law,
mental
to
a dear and substantial conflict must be found
exist
” People Morris,
justify
(8
its condemnation.’
The second of classification in section 1 provision wiring the act is its further that electric appliances, also means and includes “fixtures, and appurtenances generation, in connection with dis- energy tribution and utilization of electrical with a potential thirty volts more between con- provision prevents ductors.” This latter the un- doing wiring licensed and if the from unskilled voltage potentially between is conductors provision restricting operations 30 or more. This persons of unlicensed to the lower and therefore dangerous voltage obviously less so a reason- requisite public safety argument able unnecessary. unsatisfactory On this I record am v, Hall. prepared to hold classification in section arbitrary unreasonable or act act is unconstitutional because thereof. holding am I in
Nor accord of Justice with exemptions that, in Sharpe subdivi- because (b), (c), (g) sions act, of section of the class legislation being discriminatory results quoted my is invalid. These subdivisions are opinion. general way they Brother’s In a include operating electrical graphing, telephoning, light signals, used tele- operations electric power companies, and electric theatrical equipment picture projectors *11 such as motion general phases logically stage equipment. excepted electrical These might
of electrical or maintenance by legislature have been considered the safeguarded by voluntary inspection be such as are and safety precautions by use reasonable those engaged phases in these work or electrical such legislature might uses of current. The public sufficiently well have concluded that the was safeguarded by responsibility financial the or the high degree possessed by engage of skill those who phases industry in the of electrical or the uses of by (b), (c), electric current the covered subdivisions (g). concluding, legislature may prop- So erly attempted designed have to enact a statute protect general public in use of its cur- electric including rent without those whose business, very nature, necessitates its conduct em- skilled ployees in manner which in itself affords a reason- protection general public. able to the phase my quotes
On this of the case Brother some- length what at from Southeastern Electric Co. v. City Atlanta, Ga. E. S. Ex- report amination of of this decision discloses my quotation Brother’s not from the court’s de- Michigan Reports. part bnt is a instead it the court’s state-
cisión, alleged plaintiff’s petition ment what was injunction. quoted portion Besides this large pleadings number other reasons were support plaintiff’s therein asserted that contention controversy was unconstitu- ordinance Among other reasons was the follow- such tional. ing: operates unequally upon “And the ordinance imposes because it class, of the
members same upon who do elec- of an examination those burden exempts others structures, but trical work of the new who do examination same class from such original connec- where the structures work tions ’’ have been made. disposing Georgia In case court con- by merely providing “syllabus” itself tented opinion, in it stated the which ordinance was dis- portions criminatory, that it violated certain process Constitution and also due State equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution. phase quite impossible to It is determine what Georgia led the court to the above conclu- ordinance plaintiff’s do know it was sion. We whether quoted my opinion, contention Brother’s *12 example, contention, it some other whether was quoted. The latter not one hereinbefore is the in instant Because could not be asserted of these circumstances the case. Georgia may
the decision very per- may point, least it is not be in and at not proper decision the constitutes suasive what instant case. may possibly be consid
Another decision which bearing upon having something of a this ered phase be found in law State v. the will Gantz, [N. S.] L. R. A. 524, 124 La. South. Hall. providing case, But in this latter wherein a statute licensing of electricians was held to the" he»in- applicable only the statute valid, was made one city obviously legisla- State; it was class city tion as between electricians within residing portions others in other State. is the decision of the Louisiana court not true placed was ground
on this insofar as but, not harmony holding phase herein on with our this we should decline follow it. case, unsatisfactory
In view of the state of the record justified presented ing appeal we not on this in hold- are 1935, Act No. Pub. Acts unconstitutional grounds hereinbefore either considered. But upon ground I which can concur with the reached pellant’s the result presented by ap- by Sharpe Mr. Justice vague act “is contention and un- ’’ uncertainty, certain its terms and is void for and measured and requirements of the act are by national defined electric code. (b), provides:
In section subdivision “The electrical administrative board shall have general supervision of all such electrical and and thirty days’ than after less shall, notice publish public hearing, prescribe minimum which shall be therefor, uniform, standards and not than the minimum standards described less national electric code.”
Note also the embodiment of “the reference quoted. national electric code” section above position appellant’s In his brief is stated as fol- lows : appellant urges “Further this court that by prescribing section, above that such rules
shall be ‘not less than the minimum standards de ** # code,’ scribed the national electric dele *13 Reports. Michigan 290
30 gates Underwriters, Fire Board of to the National right promulgate code, national electric WI19 prescribe become shall to criminal offenses for what minimum offenses of this the citizens State. ‘‘ though the National Board is done even That this composed body is not even a of Fire Underwriters Michigan organization of busi- but is an citizens, meets de- men of the which ness several States termine these code rules outside borders Michigan. yet And the rules established State foreign adopted by body, in- them, when stantly part criminal law become Michigan.” State of Delegation legislative power of this character and to repeatedly this extent cannot be has countenanced. People,
been condemned this court. King Riordan, 508; ex 73 Mich. v. Bolt, rel. Con 268 Ann. Co., cordia Fire Ins. Mich. Cas. (6 87); Co., Bank & Trust Co. v. Oakland Chemical Mich. 673, 684. question
The identical involved instant case supreme came before the court of Kansas case of 360, Kan. Pac. State v. Crawford, paragraph 2 A. L. R. The first syllabus of this decision reads: delegate private legislature indi- cannot “The persons private associations viduals and obligatory concerning power rules the man- to make provide agement property, nor can it and care of penal shall be of- of such rules that the breach fense.” provision, “All Kansas statute contained
electric shall be accordance with na- The trial de- court, tional code.” quashed charg- motion, the informations fendants’ ing them with misdemeanors committed in violation *14 Hall. ruling being ground statute, such the provision quoted the rendered the statute unconsti- Upon supreme tutional. review court the said: considering “In the correctness of the district quashing against the court’s decision informations only necessary it is to recur to defendants, the most the elementary simple principles gov- civil power In our commonwealth the ernment. to make, repeal alter and the amend, laws is vested in the body may legislature'. That not abdicate its func- power delegate body, tions nor to other how- farsighted may learned, ever This wise and latter the be. principle public of our Constitution and of our policy is fundamental. including courts, “Some our have own, relaxed, seemingly rigid or the relaxed, enforcement
principle by giving in some instances, countenance legislation punish enacted as misdemeanors or penalize promul- otherwise to breach rules gated promulgated toor afterwards some body legislature. official created subordinate [*] # [*] “But none of cases cited has ventured so far legislature might to intimate that the
afield as dele- gate organization private per- to some unofficial Fire sons, like National Protective Association, power promulgate government rules for people management of this State or for the property, legislature might pre- of their that the punishment scribe breaches of these rules. We judicial feel certain that no such doctrine has ever announced.” been attempted police power legis-
In an
exercise
providing
lature of Arizona
regulation
enacted
statute
wiring.
of electricians and electrical
empowered municipalities
statute
to enact provided
regulations
codes, and the statute
that the
Michigan Reports.
subsequent
existing national electrical codes and
prima
thereto should be
evidence
additions
facie
approved
of a
methods, but that
electrical code
govern
municipality
in cases where
was
should
there
Appellant’s No. contention that Act Pub. Acts *15 uncertainty unconstitutional, because legislature attempted terms because legislative delegation power, must unauthorized appears This act it- be sustained. defect from the provision self. in this standards minimum prescribed those shall be national elec- State regulatory tric code so affects this whole that this act provision segregated cannot and still a work- leave ing provision legis- statute. was in this designated lature test of what would constitute materially minimum standards. Without act embody remaining portion altered and the ceases to legislature’s intent. in toto Therefore, must fail.
For I the reason indicated in re- above concur versal and without trial. new and McAllister, concurred JJ., Wiest, Potter, J. with North,