It is within the power of a state legislature to provide for the
appointment of inspectors of mines and the payment of their fees by
the owners of the mines.
A law providing for the inspection of coal mines is not
unconstitutional by reason of its limitation to mines where more
than five men are employed at any one time.
Where the law provided for an inspection of coal mines at least
four times a year, it was held not to be objectionable by reason of
the fact that a discretion was invested in the inspectors to cause
the mines to be inspected more than four times a year, and as often
as they might deem it necessary and proper.
A law providing that the fees for each inspection shall not be
less than six nor more than ten dollars is .not rendered
unconstitutional by the fact that, within these limits, the fees
for each inspection are fixed by the inspector.
This was an action of assumpsit originally brought in the
Circuit Court of St. Clair County by the people of the State of
Illinois against the Consolidated Coal Company of St. Louis, a
corporation of Illinois, to recover the sum of $1,818 for the fees
of state mine inspectors for the inspection of certain coal mines
located in Illinois, owned and operated by the defendant, under "An
Act Providing for the Health and Safety of Persons Employed in Coal
Mines," originally enacted May 28, 1879, and the amendments
thereto.
The case was submitted to the court without a jury, upon a
stipulation of facts, in which it was agreed that the mines of the
defendant, thirty-one in number, had been inspected between
November 2, 1895, and June 26, 1899, by a state inspector, whose
aggregate fees were $1,818; that the Secretary of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics presented the defendant with the inspection bills
and demanded payment therefor, which defendant refused to pay.
Page 185 U. S. 204
It was further stipulated that the charge for the recovery of
which this action was brought was made in pursuance of the Act of
May 28, 1879, and that the question to be raised and disposed of
was the validity and constitutionality of so much of said
above-entitled act and the amendments thereto as related to the
inspection fees of the said mine inspectors, and the imposing upon
the mine operator and owner the duty of paying such fees, and also
whether there was any remedy at law to recover such fees.
A judgment having been entered for the payment of these fees,
the case was carried by writ of error to the supreme court, where
the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County was
affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Act of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois,
entitled "An Act to Provide for the Health and Safety of Persons
Employed in Coal Mines," originally passed May 28, 1879,
subsequently incorporated in the Revised Statutes of 1895, and
amended in 1897, Hurd's Statutes, 1897, p. 1088, c. 93, provides as
printed in the margin.
*
Page 185 U. S. 205
The supreme court found that all the state questions involved in
this case had been disposed of in
Chicago, Wilmington
Page 185 U. S. 206
&c. Coal Co. v. People, 181 Ill. 270. It only
remains for us to determine whether the validity of the state
statute above cited was drawn in question on the ground of its
repugnancy to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and
the decision was in favor of its validity, when it should have been
held invalid. While the constitutionality of the law was not
specially set up and claimed before the trial in the circuit court,
there was a motion made in arrest of judgment in which the
invalidity of the statute was specially set up upon the ground of
its repugnancy to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The
motion was denied, although the supreme
Page 185 U. S. 207
court did not in terms pass upon the federal constitutionality
of the law. But this was a sufficient presentation of the federal
question.
The regulation of mines and miners, their hours of labor, and
the precautions that shall be taken to insure their safety, health,
and comfort are so obviously within the police power of the several
states that no citation of authorities in necessary to vindicate
the general principle. Many of these cases are reviewed in
Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, in
which it was held to be competent for a state legislature to limit
the hours of labor, in mines and smelting works, to eight per
day.
1. We do not understand the general principle to be questioned
that the state may appoint mining inspectors and provide for their
payment by the owners of mines,
Packet Co. v. St. Louis,
100 U. S. 423;
Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455;
Nashville &c. Railway v. Alabama, 128 U. S.
96,
128 U. S. 101;
Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U.
S. 691;
Charlotte &c. R. Co. v. Gibbes,
142 U. S. 386;
Chicago &c. Coal Co. v. People, 181 Ill. 270; but it
is insisted that the acts here involved, insofar as they give to
district mining inspectors a discretion as to the number of times
they shall inspect such mines and a further discrimination as to
what fees they shall charge, within the limit fixed by these acts,
is in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment forbidding a state
from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, or denying any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the law.
2. Another question is whether the act, as amended in 1897,
insofar as it discriminates as to penalties imposed upon some
persons engaged in the mining business, and not upon others, is a
proper exercise of the police power. It is true that the act of
1897 amended the former law of 1895 by limiting its application to
coal mines "where more than five men are employed at any one time."
This is a species of classification which the legislature is at
liberty to adopt, provided it be not wholly arbitrary or
unreasonable, as it was in
Cotting v. Kansas City Stockyards
Company, 183 U. S. 79, in
which an act defining what should constitute public stockyards, and
regulating
Page 185 U. S. 208
all charges connected therewith, was held to be unconstitutional
because it applied only to one particular company, and not to other
companies or corporations engaged in a like business in Kansas, and
thereby denied to that company the equal protection of the laws. In
the case under consideration, there is no attempt arbitrarily to
select one mine for inspection, but only to assume that mines which
are worked upon so small a scale as to require only five operatives
would not be likely to need the careful inspection provided for the
larger mines, where the workings were carried on upon a larger
scale or at a greater depth from the surface, and where a much
larger force would be necessary for their successful operation. It
is quite evident that a mine which is operated by only five men
could scarcely have passed the experimental stage, or that
precautions necessary in the operation of coal mines of ordinary
magnitude would be required in such cases. There was clearly
reasonable foundation for a discrimination here.
It is true that the act of 1897 does not in terms declare that
the act of 1895 shall only apply to coal mines where more than five
men are employed at any one time, but merely exempts the owners of
such mines from punishment for violations of the general law. No
one, however, can read this act, in connection with the prior act
of 1895, without perceiving an intention on the part of the
legislature to exempt such mines from the scope of the act. An act
which declares it to be unlawful for any person to operate mines
of a certain class without first complying with all the
conditions and sanitary regulations required under existing laws,
and paying all inspection fees, and, in case of refusal, to make it
the duty of the mine inspector, through the state's attorney, to
proceed in behalf of the state against such person, to compel the
discontinuance of the mine, is so plainly an exemption from the
operation of the law of all
other mines as to constitute a
classification in their favor.
3. Another charge is that, by § 11
d,
"it shall be the duty of each inspector, as often
as he may
deem it necessary and proper, and at least four times a year,
to inspect each and every mine in his inspection district."
It requires no argument to show that, for the protection of the
operatives, one mine may be
Page 185 U. S. 209
required to be inspected oftener than another, depending largely
upon the number of miners, the depths of their workings, and the
nature of the ground through which the excavations are made. While
at a certain stage of excavation, the precautions imposed by the
mining inspector may be quite adequate for the protection of the
operatives, at another time, the same precautions would be
obviously insufficient, depending largely upon the rapidity with
which the excavations were made and the changes of air observed as
the excavations progressed.
It is true that the act itself furnishes no basis for a
classification as to the number of inspections and as to the price
charged in each case, except that it provides that no inspection
shall be required unless five operatives are employed at the same
time, that at least four inspections shall be made each years, and
that the fees shall be dependent upon the length of time consumed
and the expense necessarily incurred in the inspection of such
mine. It also provides that the charges for each inspection shall
not be less than six dollars nor more than ten dollars.
It is insisted that such classification of mines, as to the
number of inspections and fees therefor, should be made by the
legislature, and nothing be left to the inspectors or other
officers to determine the number of times a particular mine shall
be inspected and the fees chargeable therefor. The ordinary
classification is made by the legislature, where such
classification can be logically made, either upon the basis of
capital stock, number of operatives, mileage, or other facts which
can be seized upon as an easy and an approximately just basis for
classification. But in such a case as this, there are so many
elements entering into the classification as to make it impossible
to seize upon one or two and make them the only basis. For
instance, the number of inspections to be made might depend not
only upon the size of the mines and the number of the operatives,
but upon the character of the work being done, the nature of the
soil being excavated, the depth of the excavation, and a dozen
other features, all of which might enter into the basis of a
classification by a competent inspector, and no one of which can be
said to be determinative.
We do not regard the act as necessarily violative of the
Fourteenth
Page 185 U. S. 210
Amendment, in the fact that some discretion is allowed to the
inspector in determining the number of times the mines shall be
inspected and the fees fixed therefor, particularly in view of the
fact that no complaint is made of the abuse of such discretion, or
that the inspector has been "guilty of any act tending to the
injury of miners or operators of mines during their term of
office." § 11
c.
While it is undoubtedly true that legislative power cannot be
delegated to the courts or to the executive, there are some
exceptions to the rule under which it is held that Congress may
leave to the President the power of determining the time when or
exigency upon the happening of which a certain act shall take
effect. Thus, in the leading case of
The
Aurora, 7 Cranch 382, it was held that Congress
might make the revival of a law conditional upon a fact then
contingent, and empower the President to declare by proclamation
that such fact has occurred and the law revived. It has also been
the immemorable policy in this country and in England to vest in
municipal organizations certain local powers in respect to which
they are peculiarly interested, and of the necessities of which
they are much better informed than a general legislature possibly
could be. Other instances are cited by Judge Cooley in his work
upon Constitutional Limitations:
"For the like reasons, the question whether a county or a
township shall be divided and a new one formed, or two townships or
school districts, formerly one, be reunited, . . . or a county seat
located at a particular place, or after its location removed
elsewhere, or the municipality contract particular debts or engage
in a particular improvement, is always a question which may be with
propriety referred to the voters of the municipality for
decision."
The last case in this Court in which the question arose is that
of
Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, in
which it was held that, while Congress could not under the
Constitution delegate its legislative power to the President, it
might authorize him to suspend, by proclamation, the free
introduction of sugar, coffee, and similar articles when he was
satisfied that any country producing such articles imposed duties
or other exactions upon the products
Page 185 U. S. 211
of the United States which he might deem to be reciprocally
unequal or unreasonable.
In enacting a law with regard to the inspection of mines, we see
no objection, in case the legislature find it impracticable to
classify the mines for the purposes of inspection, to commit that
power to a body of experts who are not only experienced in the
operation of mines, but are acquainted with the details necessary
to be known to make a reasonable classification, although it may
affect the amount of fees to be paid by the mine owners.
It is obviously necessary that the number of inspections per
year shall be determined by someone and by some executive officer.
As it is clearly a matter of detail which could not be determined
by the courts, it occurs to us that it could be entrusted to no one
so safely as to the inspector of the district, who is appointed
with great care, and who must be thirty years of age, a citizen of
the state, and have a knowledge of mining engineering sufficient to
conduct the development of coal mines, and a practical knowledge of
the method of conducting the mining for coal in the presence of
explosive gases, and of the ventilation of coal mines Each one must
have a practical mining experience of ten years, not interested as
owner, operator, stockholder, superintendent, or mining engineer of
any coal mine during his term of office, and be of good moral
character and temperate habits.
The stipulation upon which the case was tried shows that the
defendants were the owners of thirty-one mines, and that they were
inspected between November 22, 1895, and June 26, 1899, two hundred
and forty times, which was at the rate of about seventy-eight times
per year for all of the thirty-one mines, or about two and one-half
times per year for each mine. As § 11
d of the act requires
each inspector to inspect each and every mine in his district at
least four times a year, it would seem that, instead of overdoing
his duty, he had been derelict in the performance of it.
4. It is also true that the fees for each inspection shall not
be less than six dollars nor more than ten dollars, and that such
fees shall be regulated by the class of the mine, which shall be
fixed by the inspector, and depend upon the length of time
consumed
Page 185 U. S. 212
and the expense necessarily incurred in the inspection of such
mine. Objection is made upon the ground that it gives to each
mining inspector not only the right to determine the number of
times each mine shall be inspected, but the fees to be charged in
each case. If his discretion were unlimited in this direction, and
the fees were retained by himself, there would be much force in the
suggestion; but the truth is that the amount of the fee must be in
each case somewhere between six dollars and ten dollars, and must
be paid to the Secretary of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and by
him covered into the state treasury, to be held as a fund for the
payment of the salaries of the mining inspectors. Each inspector
provided for by the act receives for his services $1,800 per annum,
to be paid quarterly out of the funds in the state treasury
received for the inspection fees, and, in the event of such fees
being inadequate to compensate such inspectors in the amount
provided for herein, the deficiency of the salaries shall be paid
out of the money in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated.
It appears then, first, that the state inspector receives a regular
salary, neither increased nor diminished by the number of
inspections or the amount paid for each inspection; and, second,
that he receives such salary directly from the bureau of labor
statistics, and not from the fees paid to him therefor. As his
compensation is dependent neither upon the number of his visits nor
upon the amount of his fees, it is difficult to see how he would
gain by multiplying one or magnifying the other. We know of no
reason why the legislature should deprive itself of the best
attainable evidence of the facts it seeks to make determinative of
these two questions.
As we fail to discover any repugnancy between the acts in
question and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, we are
of opinion that the decree of the Supreme Court was right, and
should be affirmed.
*
"SEC. 11
a. This state shall be divided into seven
inspection districts, as follows:"
etc.
"SEC. 11
b. The governor shall, upon a recommendation of
a board of examiners elected for that purpose, composed of two
practical coal miners, two coal operators, and one mining engineer,
to be
appointed by the bureau of labor statistics of this
state, all of whom shall be sworn to a faithful discharge of their
duties, appoint seven properly qualified persons to fill the
offices of inspectors of coal mines in this state (being one
inspector for each district provided for in this act) whose
commission shall be for the term of two years: but they shall at
all times be subject to removal from office for neglect of duty or
malfeasance in the discharge of duty, as hereinafter provided
for."
"SEC. 11
c. The inspectors so appointed shall have
attained the age of thirty years, be citizens of this state, and
have a knowledge of mining engineering sufficient to conduct the
development of coal mines, and a practical knowledge of the methods
of conducting mining for coal in the presence of explosive gases,
and of the proper ventilation of coal mines. They shall have had a
practical mining experience of ten years, and shall not be
interested as owner, operator, stockholder, superintendent, or
mining engineer of any coal mine during their term of office, and
shall be of good moral character and temperate habits, and shall
not be guilty of any act tending to the injury of miners or
operators of mines during their term of office. They shall provide
themselves with the most approved modern instruments for carrying
out the intention of this act,"
etc.
"SEC. 11
d. Any person, company, or corporation
operating any coal mine in this state
shall be required to pay
an inspection fee of not less than six dollars nor more than ten
dollars for each visit of inspection or investigation of a coal
mine by a state mine inspector, such fee to be regulated by the
class of the mine, which shall be fixed by the inspector, and
depend upon the length of time consumed, and the expense
necessarily incurred in the inspection of such mine, and such
fees shall be paid quarterly by the person, company, or corporation
operating the mine inspected to the Secretary of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and by him covered into the state treasury, to be
held as a fund for the payment of salaries of state mine
inspectors, as herein provided.
It shall be the duty of each
inspector, as often as he may deem it necessary and proper, and at
least four times a year, to inspect each and every mine in his
inspection district. Each inspection shall be certified to by
the pit committee and mine manager of said mine. It shall be the
duty of each inspector to keep a detailed record of all inspections
and of all fees for such inspections, and he shall file a copy of
the same with the Secretary of the State Bureau of Labor Statistics
quarterly, between the first and fifteenth days of the following
months: October, January, April, and July, which reports shall be
published annually as a part of the regular report of the State
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The inspectors provided for in this act
shall receive as full compensation for their services the sum of
eighteen each per annum, to be paid quarterly out of such funds in
the state treasury as may be received for inspection fees:
Provided, however, That in the event of such fees being
inadequate to compensate the inspectors in the amount provided
herein, the deficiency in the salaries shall be paid out of any
moneys in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated. The mine
inspector shall be required to post up in some conspicuous place at
the top of each mine visited and inspected by him a plain statement
of the condition of said mine showing what in his judgment is
necessary for the better protection of the lives and health of
persons employed in said mine; such statement shall give the date
of inspection and the number of hours spent in the inspection, also
the date of the last previous inspection, and shall be signed by
the inspector and the check weighman, and, if there be no check
weighman employed by the miners, then said statement shall be
signed by the weighman at the mine."
"SEC. 11
e. It shall be unlawful for any person,
company, or corporation to operate any coal mine in this state
without first having complied with all the conditions and sanitary
regulations required under existing laws, and paying all inspection
fees provided for in this section, and in case of the refusal of
any person, company, corporation, owner, agent, or operator to pay
said inspection fees, after assuming to operate a coal mine, it
shall be the duty of the state's attorney of the county, or any
other attorney, in case of his refusal promptly to act, to proceed
on behalf of the state against said person, company, corporation,
owner, agent, or operator of said mine, by injunction, without
bond, to restrain said person, company, corporation, owner, agent,
or operator from continuing or attempting to continue to operate
said mine or carry on a mining business."
In 1897, section 11
e was amended so as to read as
follows, the words in italics being inserted into the paragraph as
it was originally enacted (Sess.Laws 1897, p. 269):
"SEC. 11
e. It shall be unlawful for any person,
company, or corporation to operate any coal mine in this state,
where more than five men are employed at any one time,
without first having complied with all the conditions and sanitary
regulations required under existing laws, and paying all inspection
fees provided for in this section, and in case of the refusal of
any person, company, corporation, owner, agent, or operator to pay
said inspection fees, after assuming to operate a coal mine, it
shall be the duty of the mine inspector in said district, through
the state's attorney of the county, or any other attorney, in case
of his refusal to promptly act, to proceed on behalf of the state
against said person, company, corporation, owner, agent, or
operator of said mine by injunction, without bond, to restrain said
person, company, corporation, owner, agent, or operator from
continuing or attempting to continue to operate said mine or carry
on a mining business."