Title: Ezell v. City-Parish Plumbing Board of Baton Rouge
Citation: 100 So. 2d 464, 234 La. 441
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: February 10, 1958

100 So. 2d 464 (1958) 234 La. 441 Emile G. EZELL v. CITY-PARISH PLUMBING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. No. 43656. Supreme Court of Louisiana. February 10, 1958. *465 R. Gordon Kean, Jr., Parish Atty., John V. Parker, Asst. Parish Atty., Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants. Harrison G. Bagwell, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee. MOISE, Justice. The suspension of the certificate of a master plumber, by the exercise of implied or general authority, presupposes that such is reasonable, impartial, fair, general and not in contravention of common right. The District Judge in this case properly pronounced the rule of construction that an ordinance is unconstitutional when it vests arbitrary discretion in a public officer and board without prescribing a definite rule for their guidance. Plaintiff-appellee is a master plumber, duly licensed to carry on the plumbing business in the City of Baton Rouge. His cause of action is predicated on the fact that on March 20, 1957, he received a registered letter from the Secretary of the Plumbing Board for the City of Baton Rouge, inviting him to attend a meeting of the City-Parish Plumbing Board to be held on March 25, 1957, in Room 408 of the Municipal Building at Baton Rouge, for the purpose of discussing alleged violations of the State Sanitary Code, LSA-R.S. 40:1 et seq. At the meeting, he discovered that he was a defendant and was advised that his license as a master plumber had been revoked. He states that he was not even advised of the complaints filed against him, but that during the course of the meeting he was handed a list of these complaints, none of which involved any violation of the Plumbing Code of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He alleges that he was not confronted with any witness, was not represented by counsel, nor was he given an opportunity to present any defense. Plaintiff thereupon instituted proceedings against the City-Parish Plumbing Board, in which he raised the question of the constitutionality of the Plumbing Code and sought certain injunctive relief. He alleged that the course of conduct taken against him was in violation of the due process clause of both the Federal and State Constitutions, U.S.Const. Amend. 5; LSA-Const. art. 1, §6, and that the authority for the offensive action was an illegal grant of legislative and judicial power. After trial of a rule nisi, a preliminary injunction issued April 15, 1957, on the ground that the notice sent to plaintiff was not sufficient notice as was contemplated under Section 105-a of the Plumbing Code. Defendants' *466 exception of no cause of action, to plaintiff's prayer for a permanent injunction and his attack on the constitutionality of the Plumbing Code, was referred to the merits. After hearing, the trial judge found that certain sections of the Plumbing Code unconstitutionally delegated legislative and judicial powers, and he rendered judgment which Defendants have appealed to this Court and again urge the exceptions pleaded in the trial court. The appeal is, however, directed to the judgment passing on the merits of the case, and in reviewing the matter we shall only consider the constitutionality vel non of the Plumbing Code of the City of Baton Rouge. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants deny that the City of Baton Rouge has the right to regulate the business of plumbing. Act 169 of 1898. Plaintiff contends that, although a municipality may validly regulate the plumbing business through an administrative board, the administration must be under an ordinance providing rules and standards to govern those charged with its administration, and he argues that such do not exist in the instant code. He further contends that the provisions of the code authorizing the board to formulate rules and regulations; to interpret the code and authorize variations thereof; making the plumbing inspector the judge of the quality of material and workmanship, and empowering him to construe the regulations as to their meaningare invalid in that they attempt to vest legislative and judicial powers in an administrative board and official, are uncertain and indefinite, and subject licensees to the arbitrary discretion, whims, and caprice of the inspector. The following sections of the Plumbing Code of the City of Baton Rouge were declared unconstitutional by the trial judge: "The duties of the Plumbing Board shall be as follows: The trial judge analyzed the contents of the above sections, and his findings read: Defendants contend on appeal that the language in Section 101, Item (4) of the Plumbing Code, delegating to the Plumbing Board the power to formulate such regulations as the Plumbing Board deems necessary to govern inspectors, plumbing, etc., when read in connection with the whole ordinance, does not grant arbitrary *469 discretion to the Plumbing Board. It is urged that in considering this ordinance this Court must consider the legislation as a whole, must consider the object and purpose of the legislation, and must interpret the ordinance so as to render it operative and not as to cast doubt on its constitutionality. It is further contended that the delegation of power to an administrative board to make rules and regulations does not authorize that agency to promulgate regulations which are not within the scope, purpose and policy of the act giving it life, and that the Plumbing Board does not write the law regulating plumbing but simply fills in the details within the recognized administrative sphere. To properly pass upon the contentions herein urged, we must trace the history and origin of the delegation of powers to municipal boards. The City of Baton Rouge was duly incorporated by Act 169 of 1898, supra. Under Section 18, the legislative powers of the corporation were vested in a council, and under Section 20, that body was authorized to and did enact the present Plumbing Code of the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The validity of this code is to be tested by the sanction of the Legislative Act (Act 169 of 1898), rather than by the test of whether it is contrary to the Constitution. City of New Orleans v. Crescent Mutual Insurance Co., 25 La.Ann. 390. The creation of a Plumbing Board of the City of Baton Rouge (Sec. 101 of the instant code) was a valid delegation of certain powers of the City Council and was not contrary to the Legislative Act.[1] However, when the Code vested the Board with the power "to formulate such regulations as the Plumbing Board deems necessary to govern inspectors, plumbing, plumbers and gas fitters, or others doing plumbing or gas work," (Item (4) of the 2nd Paragraph of Section 101), it delegated legislative powers and went beyond the scope of the act of creation. The vesting of such arbitrary discretion in the Board therefore cast Item (4) of Section 101, 2nd Paragraph, with unconstitutionality. In order for the Plumbing Board to validly enact rules and regulations, the Plumbing Code must set forth standards or prescribe fixed and definite limitations. Many sections of the Plumbing Code set forth numerous specifications, but we do not find any statement in Item (4) of the 2nd Paragraph of Section 101 as to what standards, specifications, or rules are to govern the regulations formulated by the Plumbing Board. We cannot, therefore, say that a consideration of the whole Plumbing Code in this instance would give validity to a specific section. The trial judge was correct in his findings, supra, and we reiterate that the power granted to the Plumbing Board to formulate regulations was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Appellants further contend that Section 105-a of the Plumbing Code, supra, which provides for the suspension and revocation of certificates by the Plumbing Board or by the Board upon the recommendation of the City Plumbing Inspector, and Section 117, which provides that the City Plumbing Inspector is to be the judge of quality of material and workmanship, are not unconstitutional, because, in this modern, complex, and complicated civilization, discretion in many fields must be left to executive or administrative action. We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113, 105 So. 244, 246: An examination of the record does not show any instance where the Plumbing Board or the City Plumbing Inspector has to make immediate decisions. It follows that the Plumbing Code must set forth standards and rules for the revocation of licenses and the grading of material and workmanship. These cannot be deduced from other parts of the Code. The trial judge discussed Sections 105-a and 117 in detail, and we do not feel that we can add further to his conclusions. We agree with his findings that these sections are not authorized by Act 169 of 1898 and are therefore unconstitutional because of their delegation of judicial and legislative powers. Any appearance of criticism, as distinguished from earnest presentment, would be an error of the mind and not of the heart. On the question of power, Thomas Jefferson wrote "Have not confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." The municipality may validly regulate the plumbing business through an administrative board; the administration must be under an ordinance providing rules and standards to govern those charged with its administration. Judgment affirmed. FOURNET, C.J., and SIMON, J., absent. [1] "Defendant next contends that, even if the city council has this power, it cannot delegate the exercise of it to the board of health. But it is the invariable custom to delegate such authority to a board or other functionary, and the authority to do so is well recognized. Fischer v. City of St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361, 24 S. Ct. 673, 48 L. Ed. 2d 1018." City of New Orleans v. Charouleau, 121 La. 890, 46 So. 911, 912, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 368.