Court Opinion

ID: 9664694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:25:53.51698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:08.649897
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, Justice, concurring. The conclusion reached hv the majority is correct, hut in my opinion there is a much sounder reason that might have been given. Tbe laudable purpose of Act 151 of 1951 was to prevent accidents' on the highways by requiring directional lights on motor vehicles which exceeded certain specified dimensions. Section 2 of the act exempts vehicles carrying forest products, farm products, luggage, and/or horses. This classification is arbitrary and bears no logical relation to the sole purpose of the act or to the results to be achieved and, therefore, violates both § 18 of article 2 of the constitution and Amendment 14. In the case of Simpson v. Matthews, 184 Ark. 213, 40 S. W. 2d 991, this court held unconstitutional under Amendment 14 an act giving counties of 75,000 or more “the right to condemn lands for the protection of public roads.” In so holding Chief Justice Hart used this language : “The amendment was intended to prevent arbitrary classifications based on no reasonable relation between the subject-matter of the limitation and classification made.” An act of the legislature designed to relieve the collector and sureties on his bond if a suit was pending in circuit court at the time of passage was held in violation of both provisions of the constitution mentioned above in the case of State, ex rel. Attorney General v. Lee, 193 Ark. 270, 99 S. W. 2d 835. The following are quotes from the opinion written by Judge Mehaeey: “The people of the state, by the adoption of Amendment No. 14, did alter, reform and abolish the power of the Legislature to pass local or special acts. We do not see how the amendment could have been made plainer. It simply says they shall not pass a local or special act. ’ ’ “This act . . . also violates § 18 of article 2 of the Constitution which reads as follows: 'The general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens. ’ ’ ’ In the case of Conway County Bridge District v. Fullerton, 196 Ark. 413, 117 S. W. 2d 1065, an act fixing certain fees for tlie collection of Special Improvement District taxes was held to violate amendment No. 14 because it exempted counties where tbe collectors were on a salary. Justice Smith, who wrote tbe opinion, gave this reason: “There is, therefore, no basis for the classification which results in this diversity of compensation for the identical service. ’ ’ This court, in the case of State ex rel. Burrow v. Jolly, 207 Ark. 515, 181 S. W. 2d 479, held that an act providing for appointment of road overseers in counties with certain populations violated amendment No. 14 because population was an arbitrary basis on which to make the classification. In this case the classification made by the legislature was arbitrary because it bears no relation to the purpose for which the act was designed. It is not reasonable to presume that a truck loaded with logs, wheat, baggage or horses is a less hazard on the highways than one of the same dimensions loaded with other substances. Edelmann v. City of Fort Smith, 194 Ark. 100, 105 S. W. 2d 528, is a case in point and many others could be cited, but it would serve no useful purpose to do so.