The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1897-11-19
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The BARRIERS Law is so Held to
be by Judge Shissler.
Says the Legislature Simply Exer=
Cised its Right of Police
Power.


his decision in the case of the State
against Henry Ulman charged with
violating the state barber'S law, by
doing business without taking out a
certificate OF registration as provided
by that law. This case it will be re-
membered by our readers, was COM
menced the last part Of September,
and was tried before Judge ShisSler
on Oct It'll. The defendant waived
his right TO jury trial and the case was
submitted to the court for determine
tion. The stipulated facts were that
Paul ]. Petit, the complaining wit
ness, president Of the BARRIERS state
board, went to the barber shop of said
Henry Ulman On Sept. 10Th and was
shaved by the said Ulman, for which
he duly paid the sum of ten cents, land
that said Henry Ulman did not then
have and never has had a license or
rtiticate Of registration as required
by chapter 1876 OF the laws of Mime
sofa for 1897; that the BARRIERS state
board had gwen notice, as required
by law, for examination, but Ulman
had never presented himself for eX-
animation or obtained license. Fol
lowing is Judge Shissler's findings
and decision in the case. The fine i'm
posed was $40, or ten days in jail, as
provided by the law:
The law cited is what is known as
the BARRIERS act, passed by the legls-
laJure of the State of Minnesota at
it's session OF 1897. The purpose Of
the law as set forth in its title is to
regulate the practice of barbering.
and tC insure better education of
such practitioners in the State OF
Minnesota.
The act declares it to be unlawful
for any person to follow the Occupa-
tion of barber without first obtaining
a certificate of registration, as pro-
vided in said act. Then follows the
provisions for the appointment and
organization of "a Board of EXamin-
ers," whose duty it is made to exam
inc applicants for such certificate, and
to issue to the applicant the requisite
certificate, when he shows by such eX-
animation that he is possessed Of the
proper degree of skill and education
in the trade.
The com plant herein charges the
defendant herein in substance with
having engaged in the occupation of
barber without having procured the
certificate of registration required as
aforesaid.
The defendant in support of his
plea of not guilty, three reasons why
he should be acquitted and discharged,
1st. That the act aforesaid is un-
constitutional.
End. That because the complaint
does not state facts sufficient to con-
stitute a public offense.
3rd. Because the act complained
of Was induced by the connivance and
at the satisfaction of one in authority.
and for the sole purpose of institute
ting this prosecution.
1t stands admitted on all hands that
this law was passed by the legislature
in the exercise of what is familiarly
termed, he Police Power of the State.
This is a power that the legislature
can exeter. e whenever il believes that
a necessity exists for such exercise,
and it is true on both principal and
authority that the legislature is the
sole judge of the exlStance of such
meet sslty.
The Police Power of the State is
that power which enables it to pro-
mote the health, comfort and safety
of society.
Statutes passed in pursuance of the
Police Power of the State must not
conflict with the cOnstil ution, and
must have some relation to the end
sought to be. accomplished, ard when
their oStensible object is to secure the
public health, cOmpOrt or safety, they
must appear to be adapted to that
end.
1t is the province Of the Courts to
determine whether statute pur.
porting to be an exercise Police
Power of the State but taking away
the property or personal liberty of a
citizen IS an appropriate measure fol-
the promotion of the health, comfort
or safety of the public. but if such a
statute has such tendency to promote
the public health ard safety, that is,
has some relation of the welfare of
society, the Courts will not declare it
unconstitutional.
The legislature is the sole Judge OF
the necessity OF such a statute, and it
is only in Cases of gIariDg abuse OF the
power that the courts step in and de-
clare such statutes invalid.
IL is well known rule of the con.
Struction of statutes that every doubt
Of the constitute ionality of a statute
must be resolved in favor of the val
idity of the law.
The question before the Court then
is; does chapter one hundred and
elghty.six (lS6) of the laws of 1897 tend
to protect tue public health and
safety against seXisting evils? Does
it have some relation TO the welfare
of s, ciety! If it has, it is the duty of
the Court to hold it to be valid,
leaving the question of its necessity
and propriety to the legislative dis
erection alone.
OThe law here under discussion has
for IFS purpose the better protection
of public health against certain dis
eases and Affections that are well
known to the created and dissent
mated by the lack of skill OF many
BARRIERS in the care and use of BARRIERS
tools and instruments, and through a
lack of proper education of BARRIERS.
relative to the cause of these diseases