The National tribune., 1906-02-15

1
dom of the State in the employment of
its citizens in civil office, and decides
that there was no abridgment of This
freedom in the, Veterans Preference
Act.
! The State has the same freedom of
| employment that belongs to the indi-
Vluuai, and no one will contend that
| the individual may not employ any per-
son whom he wishes to employ, or that
he may not choose his employees from a
| certain class. If il were otherwise lib
| erty OF contract would be DESTROYED,
and legislation in that direction would
be clearly unconstitutional. The right
to pursue any lawful calling in a law
| ful way is undoubtedly q fundamental
right, but there is marked distinc-
| ton between this right and the So
called right to be employed by a par
tcular person, or in a particular line
of service. For the purpose of Govern
ment, the Counties Cities and Towns of
the State are its agents and under it's
control, and what the State may con-
stitutionally do with reference to pub
lie matters ii may direct its agents to
do; and by the act in question the State
has simply said that it will employ in
all public departments and upon all
public works only those of n certain
class of its citizens, other things being
equal.
Nor do we believe that the act is
class legislation within the accepted
meaning of the term. 1t imposes no
special obligations or burdens on those
who are excluded from its benefits, and,
as we have seen, privileges may be
granted to particular individuals with
out reserve when by so doing the rights
of others are not interfered with. 1t
does not forbid the right to the acquisi-
ton or enjoyment of property, nor pre-
vent the disposal of person or property
which may be conceded to be among
the natural rights, and to be protected
by the natural liberty of the individual.
That equality of rights privileges and
capacities should be the aim of the
law no one will question. But we are
not here called upon to deal with the
question of inequality in privileges or
immunities, for the right to hold a pub
lie office or to be employed by the State
in any capacity is not a privilege with
in the meaning of the Constitution; and
ii our conclusion on this question is
right. it follows that there can be no in
equality or injustice in the statute un-
der consideration, for the sufficient rea-
son that no right protected by the Con-
stitution has been invaded. And con-
sequently our conclusion that the stat
ute does not contravene either the Con-
stitution of the United States or the
Constitution of this State is not in con-
flict with the cases cited by the appel
lee on the question of the equality of
privileges and immunties. among which
is the case of the State VS.. Garbroski,
III Iowa, 496.
1t is fundamental that the Legisla-
ture has the power to legislate on all
subjects. unless IL is expressly or i'm
pliedly prohibited from so doing by the
Constitution, and the act of the I.egis-
lature which is assailed must be plainly
at variance with the Constitution before
the court will 80 declare it. All doubt
full questions will be resolved in favor of
the validity Of the act.
Stewart VS.. Board of Supervisors, 80
Iowa, 2.
HUFF VS.. Cook. A Iowa, 639.
See. also, Jacobson VS.. Massa achusetts, !
1877 u. s.. IL.
That the principal question involved
in this case Is not entirely free from
doubt may be conceded. but after a full
examination Of the principles involved, !
andsthe reasoning of the cases support |
ing our CONCLUSIONS. we are satisfied
thar tine act is not Unconstitutional. !
Furthermore similar acts have been
sustained in Several of our sister States. I
and while the constitutional question |
under consideration has not been con- |
sidered in many of the decisions. they |
nevertheless lend support to our con- I
clusion in a general way. The leading /
case is In re. Mortman, 2 n. Y. Supp
1924. This decision was followed by the I
New York Courts until the State Con-
stitution was amended in 1894. giving /
preference of employment to veterans. |
People vs.. Stratton. 80 y. Y. Supp. |
2G9.
People VS.. Tobey, 1853 n. Y. SS1.
People eX rel Fallen VS.. Wright. $50
n. Y. 444. .-... ....
People VS. Lathrop. 142 y. Y. 11S.
pyviS BOARD = 1AO
ENGLAND VS.. Board. 43 All. 445.
Mcdonald vs.. Newark. So y. J. Law,
PSF.
State VS.. Miller. 6S n. w. Rep. 1872.
(Minn)
Goodrich vs. Mitchell. Ga L. r. A.,
9i5. (Kansas)
Opinion of Justices. 166 Mass. $50.
Opinion of Justices, 145 Mass. 5S7.
The Supreme Court takes up the de-
risions of the Kansas and Massachu-
setts Courts, upon which the opponents
to Veterans Preference relied very
much, and says:
The Constitution Of Kansas differs
from our own with respect to granting
privileges. The Kansas Bill of Rights
the provision that no special
privileges or immunities shall ever be
granted by the Legislature which may
the same body: and this power shall
be exercised by no other tribunal or
agency" And it is probably true that
the Goodrich case Is not an authority
On the constitutional question that we
have before us.
The appellee relies on Brown VS.. Rus
sell. 166 Mass, IA, and on State VS.
80 \. W. Rep. 412 (Wis.), as
against the constitutionality
Of the law. but neither is so in fact. In
Brown VS.. Russell the precise question
determined was whether the LeSisla
lure could "constitutionally provide that
certain public offices and employments
which it has created shall be filed by
veterans in prefernent to all other per-
sons, whether the veterans are or are
not found or thought to be actually
qualified TO perform the duties of the
office and employments by some impair
tial and competent officer or board
charged with some public duty in max
ng the appointments And it was
held that such Legislation was uncon-
because the appointing pow
er could not be compelled to appoint to
public offices persons of certain class,
in preference to all others, regardless
IF their qualifications. In State VS..
the question here presented
was not involved and was not decided.
The Court concludes by showing that
he Veterans Preference Bill is in har-
mony with the legal policy of the State
,f Iowa. and said:
Our conclusion is not without sup
port in principle I'm our own cases, how
ever. BY chapter Of the laws of the
extra session OF 1861 it was provided