Court Opinion

ID: 9636171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:18:45.549394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:37.219972
License: Public Domain

Jim Johnson, Associate Justice, dissenting. The record in this case, in my opinion, does not justify the conclusion reached by the majority. Had the case been fully developed my final conclusion possibly would be different. However, based solely on the record before us, I am unwilling to say that Ordinance No. 21, adopted by North Little Rock in 1904, is unconstitutional on its face. Fundamental to challenge of an enactment of any governmental body is the presumption of constitutionality. This presumption is necessary to prevent litigious chaos and has been recognized at every level of judicial decision. Appellants offered evidence which was not refuted: that printing establishments bearing the mark of the Allied Printing Trades Council were required to meet certain standards; that the members of the organizations making up the Council were required to serve certain apprenticeships and receive the benefit of continued education in their craft; that their methods of operation were completely different from those of appellees. There was nothing in the record to show that other printing establishments were prohibited from meeting the standards required by the ordinance. The presumption of constitutionality is a fundamental rule of construction announced and adhered to throughout the history of this Court: Bush v. Martineau, 174 Ark. 214, 295 S. W. 9; and for the many modes and manner of expressing this rule and the heavy burden placed on the party alleging unconstitutionality see: Comment 2, Ark. Law Review, 203; similarly, see: Lindsey v. Natural Carbonic Gas Company, 220 U. S. 61, a federal case holding that a substantial difference in method of operation justifies a classification and that the burden is on attacking party to prove it unreasonable. A careful review of this record reveals that appellee offered practically no testimony that can be considered as meeting this burden. The established presumption is important in all phases of the instant case. It is based, of course, on the reluctance of the courts to interfere with the enactments of a coordinate branch of the government: the legislatures. As Chief Justice McCulloch stated in a leading Arkansas case on constitutional principles, Ex Parte Byles, 93 Ark. 612, 126 S. W. 94 (1910): “The courts are not the guardians of the rights of the people of the state, except as those rights are secured by some constitutional provision which comes within the judicial cognizance. The protection against unwise or oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the representatives of the people. If this fails, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but courts cannot assume their rights. The judiciary can only arrest the execution of a statute when it conflicts with the Constitution. It cannot run a race of opinions upon points of right, reason and expediency with the law-making power. ’ ’ For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent.