Constitutionality of Statutes

16

taken below. Objection to the constitutionality of statutory provisions authorizing an assessment upon specific property can be taken only when an assessment is imposed upon specific property, and not upon an appeal from an order appointing commissioners."

IV. Constitutionality of Statutes

16. Favorable intendment and construction. As the general legislative power is absolute and unlimited except as restrained by the constitution, every act of the legislature must be presumed to be in harmony with the fundamental law until the contrary is clearly made to appear.11 Accordingly, it is the duty of

However, the estoppel against contesting the constitutionality of a street opening created by consenting thereto and waiving damages, applies only to the property then owned by the person consenting and does not prevent him from raising such objections as subsequent grantee of another parcel, if his grantor had no notice of the proceeding. Hoy v. Hubbell, (1908) 125 App. Div. 60, 109 N. Y. S. 301.

Where an order revoking a liquor tax certificate is granted without proof of the allegations of the petition because the certificate holder refused to file an answer, the fact that the trial justice offered to receive an unverified answer from the certificate holder will not prevent the certificate holder from urging, upon appeal, that subdivision 2 of section 28 of the Liquor Tax Law (Laws of 1896, ch. 112, as amended by Laws of 1901, ch. 640), which provides that in a proceeding to revoke a liquor tax certificate the certificate holder must submit a verified answer to the petition for an order of revocation, and that in default thereof an order revoking the certificate may be granted without proof of any of the allegations of the petition, is unconstitutional. Matter of Cullinan, (1903) 82 App. Div. 445, 81 N. Y. 8.

567.

9. Dodge v. Cornelius, (1901) 168 N. Y. 242, 61 N. E. 244, reversing 40 App. Div. 18, 57 N. Y. S. 791; Purdy v. Erie R. Co., (1900) 162 N. Y. 42, 56 N. E. 508, 48 L. R. A. 669, affirming 33 App. Div. 643, 54 N. Y. S. 1114. However, an objection by the appellants that the constitutionality of a statute under which they claim office cannot be attacked for the first time on appeal to the Court of Appeals is without force where an exception was taken to the decision of the trial judge that they were lawfully appointed, and the constitutional question was the only one discussed in the opinion of the Appellate Division. People v. Houghton, (1905) 182 N. Y. 301, 74 N. E. 830, affirming 102 App. Div. 209, 92 N. Y. S. 661.

So, a question as to the violation of the constitutional provision against leases of agricultural land for a longer period than twelve years (Const. of 1846, art. 1, § 14; Const. of 1894, art. 1, § 13), though not presented by the pleadings, or at the trial, or on the intermediate appeal, ought to be decided by the Court of Appeals when it is covered by an exception to a referee's report on which judgment was entered, but not specifically mentioned, since it touches the settled policy of the state with reference to a subject of such importance as to be embedded in the constitution, and the interests of the people should be looked after by the courts, even when the party who might have objected is silent. Massachusetts Nat. Bank v. Shinn, (1900) 163 N. Y. 360, 57 N. E. 611, affirming 18 App. Div. 276, 46 N. Y. S. 329.

10. Matter of Rintelen, (1902) 77 App. Div. 142, 78 N. Y. S. 1092. 11. People v. Crane, (1915) 214 N. Y. 154, 108 N. E. 427, Ann. Cas. 1915B

Constitutionality of Statutes

the courts to uphold a statute enacted by the legislature as constitutional if it is possible to do so without disregarding the 1254, reversing 165 App. Div. 449, 150 N. Y. S. 933; Lewkowicz v. Queen Aeroplane Co., (1913) 207 N. Y. 290, 100 N. E. 796, affirming 154 App. Div. 142, 138 N. Y. S. 983; People v. Bradley, (1913) 207 N. Y. 592, 101 N. E. 766, affirming 155 App. Div. 882, 139 N. Y. S. 1139; Hopper v. Britt, (1911) 203 N. Y. 144, 96 N. E. 371, Ann. Cas. 1913B 172, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 825, reversing 146 App. Div. 363, 131 N. Y. S. 135; People v. New York Carbonic Acid Gas Co., (1909) 196 N. Y. 421, 90 N. E. 441; Fifth Ave. Coach Co. v. New York, (1909) 194 N. Y. 19, 86 N. E. 824, 16 Ann. Cas. 695, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 744, affirming 126 App. Div. 657, 110 N. Y. S. 1037; Hathorn v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., (1909) 194 N. Y. 326, 87 N. E. 504, 128 A. S. R. 555, 16 Ann. Cas. 989, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 436, affirming 128 App. Div. 33, 112 N. Y. S. 374; State Water Supply Commission v. Curtis, (1908) 192 N. Y. 319, 85 N. E. 148, affirming 125 App. Div. 117, 109 N. Y. S. 494; People v. Feitner, (1908) 191 N. Y. 88, 83 N. E. 592, reversing 120 App. Div. 838, 105 N. Y. S. 993; Seeley v. Stevens, (1907) 190 N. Y. 158, 82 N. E. 1095, reversing 119 App. Div. 910, 104 N. Y. S. 1145; People v. Wells, (1905) 181 N. Y. 245, 73 N. E. 961, affirming 99 App. Div. 364, 91 N. Y. S. 219; People v. Borgstrom, (1904) 178 N. Y. 254, 70 N. E. 780; People v. Lochner, (1904) 177 N. Y. 145, 69 N. E. 373, 101 A. S. R. 773, affirming 73 App. Div. 120, 76 N. Y. S. 396; People v. State Board of Tax Com'rs, (1903) 174 N. Y. 417, 67 N. E. 69, 105 A. S. R. 674, 63 L. R. A. 884, reversing 79 App. Div. 183, 80 N. Y. S. 85, 79 App. Div. 643, 80 N. Y. S. 1145; Koch v. New York, (1897) 152 N. Y. 72, 46 N. E. 170, affirming 5 App. Div. 276, 39 N. Y. S. 164; People v. Westchester County, (1895) 147 N. Y. 1, 41 N. E. 563, 30 L. R. A. 74; People v. City Prison, (1895) 144 N. Y. 529, 39 N. E. 686, 27 L. R. A. 718; In re Stilwell, (1893) 139 N. Y. 337, 34 N. E. 777, affirming 68 Hun 406, 23 N. Y. S. 65; People v. Rosenberg, (1893) 138 N. Y. 410, 34 N. E. 285; People v. Rice, (1892) 135 N. Y. 473, 31 N. E. 921, 16 L. R. A. 836, reversing 65 Hun 236, 20 N. Y. S. 293; Sweet v. Syracuse, (1891) 129 N. Y. 316, 27 N. E. 1081, 29 N. E. 289, reversing 60 Hun 28, 14 N. Y. S. 421; Waterloo Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Shanahan, (1891) 128 N. Y. 345, 28 N. E. 358, 14 L. R. A. 481, reversing 58 Hun 50, 11 N. Y. S. 829; People v. Durston, (1890) 119 N. Y. 569, 24 N. E. 6, 16 A. S. R. 859, 7 L. R. A. 715, affirming 55 Hun 64, 7 N. Y. S. 813; People v. Budd, (1889) 117 N. Y. 1, 22 N. E. 670, 682, 15 A. S. R. 460, 5 L. R. A. 559, affirming 143 U. S. 517, 12 S. Ct. 468, 36 U. S. (L. ed.) 247; People v. Gillson, (1888) 109 N. Y. 389, 17 N. E. 343, 4 A. S. R. 465; People v. Angle, (1888) 109 N. Y. 564, 17 N. E. 413; In re New York, (1885) 99 N. Y. 569, 2 N. E. 642, affirming 34 Hun 441; People v. Equitable Trust Co., (1884) 96 N. Y. 387; People v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., (1882) 89 N. Y. 75; People v. Comstock, (1879) 78 N. Y. 356, reversing 18 Hun 311; In re New York El. R. Co., (1877) 70 N. Y. 327; Matter of Gilbert El. R. Co., (1877) 70 N. Y. 361, affirming 9 Hun 303; People v. Albertson, (1873) 55 N. Y. 50; People v. Briggs, (1872) 50 N. Y. 553; Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, (1866) 34 N. Y. 657; Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, (1863) 27 N. Y. 400; People v Orange County, (1858) 17 N. Y. 235, affirming 27 Barb. 575; Coutant v. People, (1833) 11 Wend. 511; Strahlendorf v. Long Island R. Co., (1914) 162 App. Div. 358, 147 N. Y. S. 806; People v. New York Edison Co., (1913) 159 App. Div. 786, 144 N. Y. S. 707; New York v. Kelsey, (1913) 158 App. Div. 183, 143 N. Y. S. 41; People v. City Prison, (1913) 154 App. Div. 413, 139 N. Y. S. 277; People v. Holmes, (1912) 151 App. Div. 257, 135 N. Y. S. 467; Massachusetts v. Klaus, (1911) 145 App. Div. 798, 130 N. Y. S. 713; People v. Public Service Commission, (1911) 143 App. Div. 769, 128 N. Y. S. 384, affirming (1911) 202 N. Y. 547, 95 N. E. 1137; Matter of New York, (1910) 140 App. Div. 238, 125 N. Y. S. 210; People v. Clark, (1910) 139

Constitutionality of Statutes

16

plain command or necessary implication of the fundamental law." 12 "Where a statute admits of two constructions, one of App. Div. 687, 124 N. Y. S. 527; Duffy v. Shirden, (1910) 139 App. Div. 755, 124 N. Y. S. 529; Matter of Rapid Transit R. Co., (1908) 128 App. Div. 103, 112 N. Y. S. 619, modified (1909) 197 N. Y. 81, 90 N. E. 456, 18 Ann. Cas. 363, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 647. See also treatise on STATUTES AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, Book 1 of this work.

In People v. Supervisors, supra, this was said: "It needs no citation of authorities in support of the doctrine that a statute can be declared unconstitutional only when it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it conflicts with the fundamental law, and that until every reasonable mode of reconciliation of the statute with the constitution has been resorted to, and reconciliation has been found impossible, the statute will be upheld." In People v. Gillison, (1888) 109 N. Y. 389, 17 N. E. 343, 4 A. S. R. 465, the court said: "In considering constitutional questions certain rules have been laid down by courts in relation to the exercise of their conceded power to declare void, as being in violation of the constitution, enactments of the legislature which have been passed with all due and proper formalities. It has been frequently held, and is acknowledged by all courts as the undoubted and true rule, that a statutory enactment will not be declared unconstitutional, and therefore void, unless a clear and substantial conflict exists between it and the constitution. It has been further held that every presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of legislative acts; that the case must be practically free from doubt before an act of the legislature should be declared unconstitutional; that as to our state constitution the question whether a statute is a valid exercise of legislative power is to be determined solely by reference to constitutional restraints and prohibitions; that it may not be declared void because a court may deem it opposed to natural justice and equity." In In re New York El. R. Co., (1877) 70 N. Y. 327, this was said: Nothing but a clear violation of the constitution will justify a court in overruling the legislative will. Every statute is presumed to be constitutional, and every intendment is in favor of its validity. When a statute is challenged as in conflict with the fundamental law, a clear and substantial conflict must be found to exist to justify its condemnation, but when found, courts must not hesitate to condemn. The constitution is the voice of the people speaking in their sovereign capacity, and it must be heeded."

66

12. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Williams, (1910) 199 N. Y. 108, 92 N. E. 404, 139 A. S. R. 850, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 549, affirming 136 App. Div. 904, 120 N. Y. S. 1137. To the same effect, Admiral Realty Co. v. New York, (1912) 206 N. Y. 110, 99 N. E. 241, Ann. Cas. 1914A 1054, affirming 151 App. Div. 883, 135 N. Y. S. 1097; Hopper v. Britt, (1911) 203 N. Y. 144, 96 N. E. 371, Ann. Cas. 1913B 172, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 825, reversing 146 App. Div. 363, 131 N. Y. S. 135; People v. Feitner, (1908) 191 N. Y. 88, 83 N. E. 592, reversing 120 App. Div. 838, 105 N. Y. S. 993; Seeley v. Stevens, (1901) 190 N. Y. 158, 82 N. E. 1095, reversing 119 App. Div. 910, 104 N. Y. S. 1145; People v. Wells, (1905) 181 N. Y. 245, 73 N. E. 961, affirming 99 App. Div. 364, 91 N. Y. S. 219; People v. Buffalo Fish Co., (1900) 164 N. Y. 93, 58 N. E. 34, 79 A. S. R. 622, 52 L. R. A. 803, affirming 45 App. Div. 631, 62 N. Y. S. 1143; Purdy v. Erie R. Co., (1900) 162 N. Y. 42, 56 N. E. 508, 48 L. R. A. 669, affirming 33 App. Div. 643, 54 N. Y. S. 1114; Bohmer v. Hoffen, (1900) 161 N. Y. 390, 55 N. E. 1047, affirming 35 App. Div. 381, 54 N. Y. S. 1030; People v. Westchester County, (1895) 147 N. Y. 1, 41 N. E. 563, 30 L. R. A. 74; People v. Rosenberg, (1893) 138 N. Y. 410, 34 N. E. 285; Sweet v. Syracuse, (1891) 129 N. Y. 316, 27 N. E. 1081, 29 N. E. 289, reversing 60 Hun 28, 14 N. Y. S. 421; Waterloo Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Shanahan,

16

Constitutionality of Statutes

which will make the act in violation of the constitution and by the other of which the act can be sustained as a proper exercise of legislative power, that construction should be given which assumes that the legislature was mindful of its constitutional limitations, and passed a constitutional, and not an unconstitutional act.”18

(1891) 128 N. Y. 345, 28 N. E. 358, 14 L. R. A. 481, reversing 58 Hun 50, 11 N. Y. S. 829; Rogers v. Buffalo, (1890) 123 N. Y. 173, 25 N. E. 274, 9 L. R. A. 579; People v. Budd, (1889) 117 N. Y. 1, 22 N. E. 670, 682, 15 A. S. R. 460, 5 L. R. A. 559, affirming 143 U. S. 517, 12 S. Ct. 468, 36 U. S. (L. ed.) 247; People v. Angle, (1888) 109 N. Y. 564, 17 N. E. 413; People v. Equitable Trust Co., (1884) 96 N. Y. 387; People v. Home Ins. Co., (1883) 92 N. Y. 328; Sage v. Brooklyn. (1882) 89 N. Y. 189; Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, (1863) 27 N. Y. 400; People v. Orange County, (1858) 17 N. Y. 235, affirming 27 Barb. 575; Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co., (1906) 114 App. Div. 216, 100 N. Y. S. 81, affirmed (1906) 186 N. Y. 209, 78 N. E. 871; People v. Reardon, (1906) 110 App. Div. 821, 97 N. Y. S. 535, affirmed (1906) 184 N. Y. 431, 77 N. E. 970, 112 A. S. R. 628, 6 Ann. Cas. 515, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 161; Board of Education v. Board of Education, (1902) 76 App. Div. 355, 78 N. Y. S. 522, affirmed (1904) 179 N. Y. 556, 71 N. E. 1128; McGrath v. Grout, (1902) 69 App. Div. 314, 74 N. Y. S. 782, affirmed (1902) 171 N. Y. 7, 63 N. E. 547; Goedel v. Palmer, (1897) 15 App. Div. 86, 44 N. Y. S. 301, affirmed (1897) 152 N. Y. 412, 46 N. E. 851; Rathbone v. Wirth, (1896) 6 App. Div. 277, 40 N. Y. S. 535, affirmed (1896) 150 N. Y. 459, 45 N. E. 15, 34 L. R. A. 408; Fort v. Cummings, (1895) 90 Hun 481, 36 N. Y. S. 36; Schneider v. Rochester, (1895) 90 Hun 171, 35 N. Y. S. 786, appeal dismissed (1898) 155 N. Y. 619, 50 N. E. 291; Swikehard v. Michels, (1894) 81 Hun 325, 29 N. Y. S. 777, 30 N. Y. S. 1135, affirmed (1895) 144 N. Y. 684, 39 N. E. 859; Adams v. East River Sav. Inst., (1892) 65 Hun 145, 20 N. Y. S. 12, affirmed (1892) 136 N. Y. 52, 32 N. E. 622; People v. Petra, (1883) 30 Hun 98, affirmed (1883) 92 N. Y. 128; Clarke v. Rochester, (1857) 24 Barb. 446, affirmed (1864) 28 N. Y. 605. See also People v. Erie R. Co., (1910) 198 N. Y. 369, 91 N. E. 849, 139 A. S. R. 828, 19 Ann. Cas. 811, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 240, reversing 135 App. Div. 767, 119 N. Y. S. 873: Viemeister v. White, (1904) 179 N. Y. 235, 72 N. E. 97, 103 A. S. R. 859, 1 Ann. Cas. 334, 70 L. R. A. 796, affirming 88 App. Div. 44, 84 N. Y. S. 712; Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, (1866) 34 N. Y. 657; Strahlendorf v. Long Island R. Co., (1914) 162 App. Div. 358, 147 N. Y. S. 806; Van Tuyl v. Robin, (1913) 160 App. Div. 41, 145 N. Y. S. 121, affirmed (1914) 211 N. Y. 540, 105 N. E. 1101; New York v. Kelsey, (1913) 158 App. Div. 183, 143 N. Y. S. 41; People v. O'Connell, (1913) 155 App. Div. 428, 140 N. Y. S. 140; People v. Clark, (1910) 139 App. Div. 687, 124 N. Y. S. 527; Clarke v. Rochester, (1857) 24 Barb. 446, affirmed (1864) 28 N. Y. 605.

13. People v. Ringe, (1910) 197 N. Y. 143, 90 N. E. 451, 18 Ann. Cas. 474, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 528, affirming 125 App. Div. 592, 110 N. Y. S. 74. Та the same effect, People v. Bradley, (1913) 207 N. Y. 592, 101 N. E. 766, affirming 155 App. Div. 882, 139 N. Y. S. 1139; In re Simmons, (1912) 206 N. Y. 577, 100 N. E. 455, dismissing appeal 152 App. Div. 503, 137 N. Y. S. 339; State Water Supply Commission v. Curtis, (1908) 192 N. Y. 319, 85 N. E. 148, affirming 125 App. Div. 117, 109 N. Y. S. 494; People v. Feitner, (1908) 191 N. Y. 88, 83 N. E. 592, reversing 120 App. Div. 838, 105 N. Y. S. 993; People v. Wells, (1905) 181 N. Y. 252, 73 N. E. 1025, affirming 99 App. Div. 364, 91 N. Y. S. 219; People v. Lochner, (1904) 177 N. Y. 145, 69 N. E. 373, 101 A. S. R. 773, affirming 73 App. Div. 120, 76 N. Y. S. 396; Sugden v. Partridge, (1903) 174 N. Y. 87, 66 N. E. 655, reversing 78 App

Constitutionality of Statutes

17

17. Statutes violative of spirit of constitution, equity, and justice. A statute which is opposed to the spirit, intent and purpose of the constitution is as much within the condemnation of the organic law as though the intention to violate the constitution were written in bold characters upon the face of the statute itself." But it has been said that the validity of statutes must be determined solely with reference to constitutional restrictions, and not by natural equity or justice; 15 that the question whether an act under consideration is a valid exercise of legislative power is to be determined solely by reference to constitutional restraints and prohibitions. "The legislative power," it is declared, "has no other limitation. If an act can stand when brought to the test of the constitution the question of its validity is at an end, and neither the executive or judicial department of the government can refuse to recognize or enforce it. The theory that laws may be declared void when deemed to be opposed to natural justice and equity, although they do not violate any constitutional provision, has some support in the dicta of learned judges, but has not been approved, so far as we know, by any authoritative adjudication, and is repudiated by numerous authorities. Indeed, under the broad and liberal interpretation now given to constitutional guaranties, there can be no violation of fundamental rights by legislation which will not fall within the express or implied prohibition and restraints of the constitution, and it Div. 644, 80 N. Y. S. 1149; People v. State Board of Tax Com'rs, (1903) 174 N. Y. 417, 67 N. E. 69, 105 A. S. R. 674, 63 L. R. A. 884, reversing 79 App. Div. 183, 80 N. Y. S. 85, 79 App. Div. 643, 80 N. Y. S. 1145; New York, etc., Bridge Co. v. Smith, (1896) 148 N. Y. 540, 42 N. E. 1088, affirming 90 Hun 312, 35 N. Y. S. 920; People v. City Prison, (1895) 144 N. Y. 529, 39 N. E. 686, 27 L. R. A. 718; People v. Rosenberg, (1893) 138 N. Y. 410, 34 N. E. 285; Sweet v. Syracuse, (1891) 129 N. Y. 316, 27 N. E. 1081, 29 N. E. 289, reversing 60 Hun 28, 14 N. Y. S. 421; Seneca v. Allen, (1885) 99 N. Y. 532, 2 N. E. 459; Clarke v. Rochester, (1864) 28 N. Y. 605, affirming 24 Barb. 446; Strahlendorf v. Long Island R. Co., (1914) 162 App. Div. 358, 147 N. Y. S. 806; New York v. Kelsey, (1913) 158 App. Div. 183, 143 N. Y. S. 41; People v. Clark, (1910) 139 App. Div. 687, 124 N. Y. S. 527; Matter of Rapid Transit R. Co., (1908) 128 App. Div. 103, 112 N. Y. S. 619, modified (1909) 197 N. Y. 81, 90 N. E. 456, 18 Ann. Cas. 366, 36 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 647; People v. Young, (1897) 18 App. Div. 162, 45 N. Y. S. 772.

14. See supra, § 1.

15. Viemeister v. White, (1903) 88 App. Div. 44, 84 N. Y. S. 712, affirmed 179 N. Y. 235, 72 N. E. 97, 103 A. S. R. 859, 1 Ann. Cas. 334, 70 L. R. A. 796. To the same effect, People v. Buffalo Fish Co., (1900) 164 N. Y. 93, 58 N. E. 34, 79 A. S. R. 622, 52 L. R. A. 803, affirming 45 App. Div. 631, 62 N. Y. S. 1143; People v. Gillson, (1888) 109 N. Y. 389, 17 N. E. 343, 4 A. S. R. 465; People v. West, (1887) 106 N. Y. 293, 12 N. E. 610, 60 Am. Rep 452.