*1 State v. Mullins. Circuit Decree. Curiam. referred
February questions 1, 1911. Per. to in this been considered in petition "having fully Court, the of the it is ordered the peti- tion be dismissed and the order remit- staying the titur be revoked.
STATE v. MULLINS. Act, Stat., 612, relating Law.-—The Cotton- —Constitutional 1. weight to reduction or cotton for and ties price bagging from of does of deprive purchaser protection not the of cotton of the equal liberty the law nor of his or without due law. property process of Beheahing 2. refused. Richland, J.,
Before Affirmed. June, DeVorE, Fowles, in Court of for Jr., H. Magistrate Indictment J. from cotton for deducting weight price of bagging ties. The decree from circuit court is: appeal magistrate case for from up
“This came before me on appeal hearing ain court. The defendant was magistrate’s convicted for an Act entitled ‘An Act in relation violating to deduction from or of cotton price for bagging ties,’ 25th A. D. 1910. The approved day February, of first section of reads as follows: Act “ Be it enacted General ‘Section 1. of Assembly Carolina, from after the State South Act, approval of this it shall be unlawful for person, any firm or corporation the business of cot engaged buying State, ton in principal agent, any or deduct sum and ties from the bale bagging weight any when weight and ties does bagging cent, not six exceed per bale of gross weight such cotton. event that weight bagging cent, ties six exceed per of such bale gross weight *2 cent, six per may the excess over said only be deducted.’ defendant to this from the appeals
“The Court however, of the on various magistrate involving, grounds two 1st. That the Act of the points: legislature deprives laws; the defendant of the 3d. equal protection of his the Act of the the defendant of deprives legislature without liberty and due of law. property process well make “It is settled that the has a to legislature right classes, different and so as all members of the same long reasonable, alike, class are treated if the classification Courts will not such unconstitutional. legislation declare Co., In the v. C. case of McCutchen Ry. is not says: unequal ‘Legislation discriminatory
Court in the sense of the clause equality Constitution because it is or limited class. special particular to merely The malee a classification of legislature power has the to persons such property public purposes, provided classification is not and bears reasonable relation arbitraiy effectuated, to the to be purpose and all within the designated class are alike.’ The treated defendant being engaged the business cotton comes within the classifica- buying made tion and in is not by legislature, my of the deprived equal protection of laws the said legislation.
“The defendant contends that said legislation deprives law, him of his without due liberty property process of in that it his of contract. abridges right liberty cases both on sides of this question, according differing case, to the facts are of each numerous. The test very seems to be whether are regulations legislation unreasonable, reasonable. If are then such legisla they unconstitutional; reasonable, tion is if then in the they exercise of its police has the to power, legislature right enact law. In the absence of a statute the subject, the reasonableness of a contract is a for the judi State v. Mullins.
Circuit Decree. C. but if ciary, there is on the and the subject, legis legislation law, lature had the such a the statute power pass to then bread, meal, flour, controls. ‘At various Indian periods salt, fish, lumber, butter, beef, lime, lard and pork, hemp, cotton were Peel subjects of commercial regulations.’ V., Coal Co. v. R. A. 393-4. Splint W. It has been held in recently in the case of v. Stevens Bai'field Co., Mercantile that a law general providing for a cotton at all markets cotton is sold weigher where would not breach of contract. Freund on the right Power, Police at section pre said: tending it ‘Laws *3 vent fraud and to honest measures in require and Courts, the transaction have in of business been sustained the certain mode of have inter although compelling dealing III., with the freedom of 94 ferred contract.’ Murm v. 113, 77, U. 24 S. the Court U. held: Supreme Ed. L. ‘That the statute maximum the fixing charges storing contracts for amounts were grain prohibiting larger valid.’ the number ‘Legislation of hours for prescribing work to has been sustained.’ employees frequently See 113,U. 703, v. 28 1145. An Soonhing Crowley, Ed. L. ordinance of of Mobile to city regulate weight the Yuille, of bread was declared constitutional. v. Mobile Ala. 140. In the case of Charleston v. 2d McCord Rogers, 485, our own Court held a law constitutional coal requiring and other articles of bulk to be weighed the heavy scales. It cannot can public be doubted the legislature interfere with lawful acts of individuals the mode in or the which if the affect private property should same enjoyed, interests one class in a puts position oppress to State, or defraud another class. In the case of v. McLean Am. Ct. Rep. Sup. Rep. Supreme St. was Court U. held that not unconstitutional legislation screened, which coal to be before was required weighed it and similar was held constitutional in the case legislation R. A. Co., If of Peel Coal there is L. Splint any v. Mullins. case the Cudling two cases and conflict between those 111., relied on so strongly referred in 160 page to authority attorneys, weight defendant’s however, case; Illinois are said better against reasoning unconsti law declared provisions in the Illinois case the was coal whose product to mines tutional applied only mines. water, coal sold and not to rail or at shipped by The facts think case the defendant. helps I do not Drexel, 2 R. A. case of parte different. The Ex entirely case, and dif 594-5, unlike the present is entirely S.), (N. the two cases. of law to apply ferent principles cotton sellers differ “The cotton on bale placed and ties that should amount of bagging intervened established cotton. The legislature tare, I am judge and so far as able to cotton scale of the chief prod- one of is reasonable. Cotton legislation and a There are a many persons great ucts of this State. and a number organizations deal of property great in this What the tare is in 'the cotton business. engaged it is in New York State, or what Liverpool, what it is in This Court for this Court to consider. matters are not took that the into will presume legislature consideration *4 enacted and marketing conditions controlling But is a new the tare. this not law regulating the proper seems A law cotton tare fixing State. 1846, now incorporated as far back as been enacted to have Laws, I. 1543, volume Cotton Code of in section customers, whom many ignorant, have great many as this may I how such legislation can see readily stated, the reasons beneficial. For wise and both ordered, magistrate’s “It 'is be, same affirmed.” hereby, is court appeals. the defendant From this decree Meaning cite: for appellant, Messrs & Lyles Lyles, 165 in constitutional inhibition: “property” “liberty” 33 —87
514
Opinion of the Court. C. S. 578; 237, A., 591; U. 41 ;2L. 45 R. N. S. S. C. 327 S. E. S. 50 Am. 639. power does extend to this case: R. Police not 103; 282; 38 451; 137; 53 S. C. C. 152 S. 78 C. U. S. S. Am, S, 646; 188; 277; 50 R. 80 C. 71 U. 18 R. A. S. R. 546. The Court must determine Act an is the proper if exercise 1 police power: 137; ; Cranch 123 U. 623 S. 45; 261; A., 198 U. 48 588; R. A. 2 N. S. R. 50 L. L. S. 627; 220; Am. R. 41 222; C. 42 259; C. 53 S. S. C. 78 S. It in the S. C. only police power exercise of that the legislature can regulate legitimate business: 169 366; 173; S., U. 208 A., U. 2 588; S. R. N. S. L. 23 R. S. S. 264; A. S. 16; 578; A., 79 C. 165 U. 2 R. N. S. E. 591; 327; 45 636; 261, 265, 50 Am. R. 48 R. A. R. 775; 8 Cyc. 1087. There must be a substantial con- and real nection belween the purpose: 78 C. S. statute and the S. 451; 623; 123 U. 198 45; 137; S. U. 152 U. 50 S. 636; Am. R. 48 265. Power R. A. the legisla- R. ture to standard measures: Tiedeman fix 260, 1082; 192; 27; Black’s Con. 29 Pa. 13 R. A. R. St. R. 7. Reasons must real and substantial: for classification S. S. 37; 66 339; C. 68 62; 74; S. C. 75 81 C. C. 50 S. 636; Am.. R. 659, 664; 32 A. 324; R. Black’s Con. R. R. 79 C. 22. S. W. H. Cobb
Solicitor Messrs. Thurmond Nichol- & son, contra, cite: The legislature has the right make S. reasonable 81 The Act comes C. 74. classifications: zvithin S. the police pozver: Am. St. 183; 177 U. 126 R. S. S. 1043; 11; 169; 197 U. 190 113; U. 94 U. 169 U. 366; 441; 36 Am. Dec. 393; R. A. 186; 85 R. 49; 243; N. C. Md. 687; N. C. 61 Tex. Jones 184; R. A. R. in this case filed 13th was July, but
remittitur petition on for stayed until rehearing was deliv- of the Court 1911. The February by ered Gary. in the The facts are set out
Mr. Justice is Honor, which Judge, order his Circuit therein stated. affirmed for the reasons dismissed. Appeal as attacked I The statute concur. Mr. Woods. Justice fix maximum more than
unconstitutional does nothing and ties which shall regarded of bagging quantity a bale component part trade a purposes cer- purpose The important public cotton. is to down tain and uniform rule laid statute fairness between prevent disputes induce State; and commercial product the chief sellers of have which will probably and uniformity certainty to the adapted reasonably result make the statute interference with in no substantial view. There is purpose in contract, and sellers freedom of for of course buyers ties have bagging will view agreeing the bale the statute must be treated as part under which cotton. careful con- 1. 1911. Curiam. After February PER the conclusion this Court has reached sideration fact has either material of law of that no or disregarded. been overlooked that the be dismissed petition ordered therefore It the remittitur heretofore granted staying the order revoked.