view raw text
THE MISSOURI DECJSION DECISION DECJSIONThe Decision The Missouri Supreme Court decision of last Tuesday on the Walsh case was a sweeping one All tLe tale judges on the bench concurred with the decision handed down by Justice Sherwood The main points of the decision as delivered by Judge Sherwood were as follows followsThe follows The paramount issue presented by the record in this case may take the form of the question Is the act just quoted constitutional It will be noted that the act does this thisFirst thirstiest First it makes it punishable as a misdemean misdemeanor ¬ or for any person who within this State keeps any room etc and who occupies the same with any book instrum nostrum nt or device for the purpose of recording bets etc or selling pools upon the result of any trial or contest of skill speed etc of man or beast which is to be made or take place within or without this State StateSecond States Second a misdemeanor for any person who thus records such bets etc or sells pools etc etcThird etched Third a misdemeanor for any owner lessee or occupant of any room etc knowingly to permit the same to be used etc for any of the pur pour ¬ poses aforesaid aforesaidFourth aforesaid Fourth a misdemeanor for such person to keep in such room etc any device or exhibits etc for the purpose of rrcording recording bets etc etcFifth lecithin Fifth amisdemeanor misdemeanor for any one to become the custodian of any money etc which is stak stack ¬ ed wagered or pledged contrary to the provis proviso ¬ ions of the act actThe Matthew The act thus creates five different kinds of misdemeanors while a proviso in the same section which creates these offences prohibits such a construction of the act as to make it un ¬ lawful for any person to register bets make books sell pools or bet upon any trial or con ¬ test of speed of a horse or between horses ou the premises or within the limits or inclosure enclosure of a regular race course on which such a contest of speed is had at and prior to the time thereof thereofIt thereof It is a rule of long established construction in this State a rule so well settled that it admits no contravention that a statute which relates to persons or things as a class is a general law while a statute which relates to particular per ¬ sons or things of a class is special State vs Tolle Toll 71 Mo 645 State vs Hermann 75 Mo 340 State vs Julow Julio 129 Mo 163 163In In the case last cited it was ruled that while the Legislature might legislate in regard to a class of persons yet that they would not be permitted to take what might be termed a natural class of persons split that class in two and then arbitrarily designate the dissevered fractions of the original unit as two classes and thereupon enact different rules for the govern ¬ ment meant of each This is precisely what has been done in the case at bar tfaa faa act bestows pro ¬ tection section on all who piy pity their calling and reap their financial harvests inside the precincts of a regular race course and inflicts punishment on all who do likewise outside of those artificial boundaries boundariesIf boundaries If such an act as that being discussed can stand the test of judicial scrutiny then the above recited provisions of section 53 aforesaid relative to the prohibition against granting by special law any special or exclusive right privi privies ¬ lege ledge or immunity will have been ordained in vain Nay more if such legislation as that here presented could be sanctioned then it wouid would be an easy legislative task to provide for the pun ¬ ishment fishnet of robbery arson murder indeed the whole category of crimes with a proviso that nothing in this act shall be so constructed as to prohibit or make it unlawful for any person to rob burn or murder on the premises or with ¬ in the limits or inclosure enclosure of a regular race course etc etcAnd detained And the fact that the present statute only creates a certain misdemeanor and provides punishment theretor thereto and exemption therefrom wherefrom does not effect the principle here announced and involved nor enlarge the t owers Powers of the Legisla Legislate ¬ ture turret in this behalf In a word itis its quite beyond the power of the Legislature to enact even a general law for the punishment of a crime all over the State and then make that same crim crime ¬ inal final act nonpunishablo nonperishable if perpetrated in certain favored localities Nor can the act in question be rescued from judicial condemnation by as burning the label of a mere police regulation The right of the citizen to constitutional equal ¬ ity city to the equal protection of the law cannot bo trampled under foot under the thin disguise of such an assumed regulation State vs Julow Julio supra supraNor soprano Nor will it do to say thatlthe tattle proviso aforesaid may bo disregarded and defendant still be pun ¬ ished dished under the previous portion of the section on which this prosecution is based since it is obvious that the act was enacted as an entirety and would not have become a law but for the incorporation within it of the obnoxious im ¬ munity unity proviso provisoWe proviso We have been cited to State vs Burgdorfer Borderer 107 Mo 1 but that case has no bearing on the case in hand since the act of 1891 contained no such provisoInasmuch provisions proviso Inasmuch as defendant has been convicted under the provisions of an unconstitutional law we reverse the judgment and order his dis dais ¬ charge All concur concurWalshs concur Walshs Walsh case was purely within the commis commies mission bet line He did a commission business in 1895 and wired his business to Louisville All the St Louis attorneys interested in the case and the racing officials of the various tracks in St Louis agree that the decision wipes out the 1S95 measure which permitted betting on local events The South Side track operated a foreign book without molestation and upon the strength of the decision Wednesday
