State Ex Rel. Ebert v. Loden

³⁷⁵ Pattisow, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this ease the relator, Frank M. Ebert, on the 22nd day of October, 1910, was arrested upon a warrant charging him with having unlawfully operated a moving-picture machine in the City of Baltimore without having first secured a licence iti accordance with the provisions of Chapter 693 of the Acts of 1910 of the General Assembly of Maryland, and when carried before the respondent, a police magistrate of that city, he protested against and denied the jurisdiction and authority of the magistrate to find him guilty of any punishable offence upon the facts alleged in the warrant, for the reason that said alleged Act of Assembly which he was charged with having violated, was unconstitutional and void. The case was from time to time postponed, until on the 6th day of December, 1910, the relator, after unsuccessfully protesting against the jurisdiction of the magistrate for the reason stated above, asked for a jury trial, which was refused him, but the justice took his recognizance for his appearance before him at a later day therein named. Before the case was heard, however, the relator filed his petition in the Baltimore City Count alleging the facts as we have stated and further alleging .therein: First: That the said Act of 1910 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by unjustly, arbitrarily and unreasonably discriminating against the petitioner and all others in like situation with him, who were engaged in the vocation of moving-picture machine operator in the City of Baltimore at the time of the passage of said act, by depriving him and all others in like situation with him of his and their liberties and property without due process of law, and denying to him and them .the equal protection of the laws.

Second: That the said act is also void for the reason that it violates the Constitution of Maryland: (1) For the reasons assigned above by which, it is alleged, it contravenes the Federal Constitution. ³⁷⁶ (2) Because it embraces more than one subject and its subject-matter is not sufficiently described in its title. (3) It assumes unlawfully to delgate to a certain board of examiners attempted to be created therein, legislative powers and discretion, contrary to Article 8 of the Bill of Rights of the State of Maryland. (4) Because, as interpreted, it vests complete summary jurisdiction in police magistrates and justices of the peace of Baltimore City to try and punish violations under it, without providing for trial by jury or for any appeal to a higher Court. The petition then prays the Court to issue its writ of certiorari commanding the justice, Daniel J. Loden, to send and certify to such Court the record of the proceeding in the ease, together with the writ, that the jurisdiction of the magistrate might be inquired into.

The writ was issued as prayed, to which a return was made and filed by the justice of the peace, termed the defendant in the certiorari proceedings, and by him a motion was made to quash the writ. The Court after hearing argument held that the petitioner having-prayed a jury trial was, under the act, entitled to a trial by jury, and thus passed an order quashing the writ and remanding the case to the justice of the peace for further proceedings, to be had in conformity with his opinion therein expressed. It is from this order that the relator has appealed. The title of the Act of 1910, Ch. 693, is, “An Act to add a new article to the Code of Public Local Laws, to be known as ‘Moving-Picture Machine Operators,’ sub-title ‘Baltimore City,’ and be numbered — ”.

Following the title are several whereas' clauses in which attention is called to the danger to life and property incident to the use of explosives, in the operation and management of moving-picture machines, by careless and incompetent operators and to the necessity for the enactment of a law “by which none but persons who are skilled in the avocation of operating moving-picture machines or electrical project ing apparatus should be allowed to pursue that calling and ³⁷⁷ to that end a board of examining moving-picture machine operators should be created, whose duty it shall be to examine moving-picture machine operators desiring to follow that trade, and give such as may possess the proper requisites a proper certificate of proficiency.” Thereafter follow the seven sections of the act. The first section is the enacting clause. The second section defines the meaning of the term “Moving-Picture Machine.” The third section provides that the Governor “shall biennially appoint in and for Baltimore City three persons, one from the Board of Eire Underwriters’ Association, one master electrician to represent the Building Inspector’s office of the City of Baltimore, and one moving-picture machine operator, all of whom have had not less than five years’ experience at the business and who have resided in Baltimore City, State of Maryland, for a period of not less than two years next preceding their appointment, who shall be known as the Board of Examining Moving-Picture Machine Operators. Section 4 provides that “all persons who at the time of the enactment of this act are engaged in the business of a ‘Moving-Picture Machine Operator’ in the City of Baltimore, as described in section 2 of this act, shall within sixty days after the first day óf May, 1910, comply with all the provisions of this act; otherwise they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction before a justice of the peace or a police justice, be fined a sum not less than ten dollars, nor more than fifty dollars, for each day or fraction thereof that they shall pursue the business of ‘Moving-Picture Machine' Operators’ in the City of Baltimore, and, if said fine is not paid, he shall be subject to imprisonment for ninety days, or both, at the discretion of the judge.” By section 5 it is provided that: “If any such person desires to engage or continue in said business of ‘Moving-Picture Machine Operator’ after the passage of this act he shall apply to the hoard provided for in section 3 of this act ³⁷⁸ for a license and submit to an examination as to Ms qualification before said board; and * * * if tbe said board shall find, after due examination, that tbe said applicant for a license possesses a reasonable knowledge of tbe ‘Moving-Picture Machine Operator’ business and electricity, then tbe said board shall, upon tbe payment of tbe fee herein provided for, issue to said applicant a license for a term of not more than one year, and shall keep a record of all licenses so issued; and no person shall be granted a license who has not reached the age of 21 years and makes oath to such fact, and has served at least one year with a licensed moving-picture machine operator in the business; * * * No person granted a license under the provisions of this act, shall operate a moving-picture machine or electrical projecting apparatus after the expiration of said license or after said license shall have been suspended or revoked as herein provided, unless the said license or renewal of same shall have been received as herein provided.” This action also names an original as well as the renewal fee to be paid for licenses so granted.

Section 6 vests in the Board of Examining Moving-Picture Operators the power to suspend or revoke the license of any operator who is negligent in the operation of his machine or who operates it in a manner dangerous to the safety of life or property, but this power is to be' exercised only after full opportunity is afforded the party charged to be present in person, or by counsel, and make any defense he may have, and then only subject to the restriction and limitation therein named. Section 7 states the amount to be paid to the board of examiners for their services and directs that it together with certain expenses therein named be paid out of the funds received from the issuance of licenses, and further directing that the surplus, if any, from such source be paid over to the State Treasurer. It also provides for the times of meeting of said board and the notice to be given by them of such meeting. ³⁷⁹ Taking up the objections urged against the validity of this statute, which the defendant is here charged with having violated, we will first consider the objection that it contravenes the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, and the twenty-third article of the Bill of Rights of this State, both of which declare that no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law. These constitutional safeguards have been so fully considered and discussed not only by the Supreme Court of the United States, but by this Court as well, that the proper construction to be placed thereon when attempted to be applied in cases of this character, seems to be well settled and established.

Dent v. W. Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 ; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 ; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703 ; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 ; Singer v. State, 72 Md. 464 ; State v. Broadbelt, 89 Md. 565 ; Scholle v. State, 90 Md. 729 ; State v. Hyman, 98 Md. 596 ; Watson v. State, 105 Md. 650 . It is plain that the act in question was passed for the purpose of protecting the public from the consequent injury and loss to life and property resulting from the operation of moving-picture machines by incompetent persons. Tn the case of Singer v. State, supra, similar requirements and restrictions were by statute imposed upon plumbers of Baltimore City; there the Court said: “As to the common and ordinary occupation of life, little or no legislation may be necessary; but if the occupation or calling be of such a character as to require a special course of study, or training, or experience, to qualify one to pursue such occupation or calling with safety to the public interests, no one questions the power of the Legislature to impose such restraints, and prescribe such "requirements as it may deem proper for the protection of the public against the evils resulting from incapacity and ignorance. And neither the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, nor Article 23 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of this ³⁸⁰ State, was designed to limit or restrain tbe exercise of tbis power. * * * We all know tbat in a large city like Baltimore, with its extensive system of drainage and sewerage, the public health largely depends upon the proper and efficient manner in which the plumbing work is executed.

And this being so, the Legislature not only has the power, hut it is eminently wise and proper that it should provide some mode hy which the qualification of persons engaged in that business shall be determined. Such an act is but the ordinary exercise of the police power of the State, and does not violate in any sense the constitutional rights of the trav-erser.” The danger to life and property incident to the use of moving-picture machines, when operated by incompetent persons, is known to all. The films used in connection with the machine are highly -explosive and dangerous in their character and if not properly managed and cared for are liable to explode. In large cities, compactly built, like Baltimore, there exist possibilities of immense loss of property by fire as was shown by the great fire of 1904, which swept the business section of the city and destroyed property worth many millions of dollars.

Moreover, in large cities moving-picture machines are usually operated in large, crowded rooms or halls filled with a constantly changing assemblage, largely composed of women and children,and where in the event of explosion or fire, excitement and panic usually follow, resulting in great loss of life. Therefore every reasonable and proper precaution and safeguard should be taken to prevent or lessen the possibilities of fires so destructive and disastrous in their consequences. It was to prevent or lessen explosions and fires and to avoid the consequences mentioned that this act was passed, providing a mode by which the qualification of moving-picture machine operators, operating machines in the City of Baltimore, shall be determined. The act was to protect the people of Baltimore Oity against the consequences resulting from the work of incom ³⁸¹ petent moving-picture machine operators and was passed in the exercise of the police power of the State, and does not in our opinion violate either the Federal or State Constitution.

Singer v. State, supra; State v. Broadbelt, supra. It is contended, however, by the relator, that the aet com’ plained of, as construed by him, applies only to those persons who were at the time of the passage of the act engaged in the business of moving-picture machine operators of Baltimore City, and not to those who were not at the time of its passage engaged in said business, but who have since become engaged therein, or who may now or hereafter wish to engage in said business; and by reason of this alleged discrimination between the classes mentioned, which classification, he alleges is unreasonable and arbitrary, the act is in violation of both the Federal Constitution and the Bill of Nights of this State. TVe can not adopt the contentions of the relator for in our opinion, he