Court Opinion

ID: 9693564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:50:15.034326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:48.460555
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C. J.,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. In upholding the constitutionality of the act in question, I believe that this court has retreated from a position which we have hereto*760fore held and maintained with pride, to wit, that a citizen clearly has the right to engage in any lawful occupation not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare without interference by the State.
As early as Carolene Products Co. v. Banning, 131 Neb. 429, 268 N. W. 313, this court said, “Measures adopted by the legislature to protect the public health and secure the public safety and welfare must have some relation to those proposed ends. If it is apparent that the statute, under the guise of a police regulation, does not tend to preserve the public health, safety or welfare, it is unconstitutional as an invasion of the property rights of the individual.”
The majority suggests that while the messenger service in this matter in and of itself is not gambling nor illegal, it is so intertwined with gambling that the Legislature may determine that it “threatens” the health, morals, or general welfare of the people. The rationale for that conclusion is apparently that the messenger service, being intertwined with gambling and gambling being illegal, may be prohibited by the Legislature. That rationale would wash were it not for the fact that the State has specifically authorized, licensed, permitted, and made lawful the ultimate act, to wit, placing wagers on horses at the track. Section 2-1216, R. R. S. 1943, specifically provides as follows: “The system of wagering on the results of horse races, as herein-before provided, when conducted within the race track enclosure at licensed horse-race meetings shall not under any circumstances be held or construed to be unlawful, any other statutes of the State of Nebraska to the contrary notwithstanding. * * (Emphasis supplied.) How, then, can it be said that the act of delivering wagers to a lawful licensed location can be illegal when the ultimate act, the placing of the bet, is legal. It is difficult, if not impossible, for me to understand how two separate acts, *761both legal in themselves, can become illegal when combined together. Under such a theory, printing the wager tickets, raising oats for the horses, or operating a taxi service to racetracks might be prohibited.
“ ‘The legislature has no authority to pronounce the performance of an innocent act criminal when the public health, safety, comfort or welfare is not interfered with * * *, and may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations.’ ” Carolene Products Co. v. Banning, supra.
“A citizen has a constitutional right to own, acquire, and sell property, and if it becomes apparent that the statute, under the guise of a police regulation, does not tend to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare, but tends more to stifle legitimate business by creating a monopoly or trade barrier, it is unconstitutional as an invasion of the property rights of the individual.” Gillette Dairy, Inc. v. Nebraska Dairy Products Board, 192 Neb. 89, 219 N. W. 2d 214.
This court has consistently held that the regulation of legitimate business may not be so unreasonable as to result in the confiscation of property and the rights incidental to its ownership. This court cannot give judicial approval to legislation that violates these fundamental principles on any theory that they are permissible under the Constitution of the State of Nebraska. See, Lincoln Dairy Co. v. Finigan, 170 Neb. 777, 104 N. W. 2d 227; Gillette Dairy, Inc. v. Nebraska Dairy Products Board, supra. A business or occupation which has no tendency to affect or endanger the public in connection with health, safety, morals, or general welfare is not within the police power. Skag-Way Department Stores, Inc. v. City of Grand Island, 176 Neb. 169, 125 N. W. 2d 529.
It is not the carrying of the money to the track, but *762rather the conducting of horse races, which could affect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Yet, in enacting section 2-1216, R. R. S. 1943, the Legislature has said such activity is not detrimental to the health, safety, or morals of the public. If an individual may lawfully carry the money himself to the track, and if a livery service may likewise lawfully carry the individual carrying his own money to the track, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how omitting the person in the transportation process could result in an act which therefore becomes detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the public.
While it is elementary that courts do not determine economic policies of the legislation and the wisdom of such legislation is for the Legislature to determine, nevertheless, it is just as elementary that in order for such legislation to be valid under the police power of the State, it cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory but must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained. Courts are not powerless to determine the character of such legislation. The construction of statutes and the determination of their reasonableness is the ultimate province, responsibility, and duty of the courts, and must be exercised by them if state and federal constitutional guarantees of liberty and property rights are not to be made subservient to the pressure groups which seek and frequently secure the enactment of statutes advantageous to a particular industry and detrimental to another under the guise of police power regulations. The preservation of constitutional guarantees against such invasions of constitutional rights is one of the foremost duties imposed upon the courts. Lincoln Dairy Co. v. Finigan, supra.
The record is totally devoid of any evidence of how or in what manner prohibiting any messenger service has any real and substantial relation to the objects sought to be attained, to wit, the protection of • *763public health, safety, or welfare. The only group that will appear to have benefited by the action of the majority herein are existing bookmakers. I have difficulty understanding how protecting them is necessary or proper under the police power of the State.
The majority suggests that the Legislature had before it an Illinois study showing that messenger services in Illinois were guilty of multiple abuses. I find little comfort or persuasion by that fact. Relyjng on evidence of abuse in business in Illinois might very well result in prohibiting almost any type of business in Nebraska.
The Legislature could reasonably and rationally cure all of the potential ills it has concerned itself with herein by simply licensing messenger services, bonding messenger services, and requiring them to file periodic reports. Nevertheless, the right to regulate does not likewise give the right to prohibit, absent some compelling public reason. See, Nelsen v. Tilley, 137 Neb. 327, 289 N. W. 388; 16 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 321, p. 623.
My fear is that by upholding such legislative action as that taken herein, we have approved a practice of prohibiting an otherwise lawful business because it is said to be intertwined with a business which is normally unlawful but which in this case has been made lawful, while leaving the normally unlawful business to continue and flourish. There appears to be no prescribed limits to which thaj: practice could be carried. I find that of grave concern, not so much with this particular case as with future matters for which this case stands as precedent.
I am authorized to state that Judges McCown and White join with me in this dissent.