Montana labor news., 1935-08-08
Montana Barber License
Law Held Valid
State Supreme Court Rules That
BARRIERS Must Have Paid Up
License.

License.
The following item by the Associated
Press appeared in print June /. The
Montana BARRIERS licensing law, passed
in 1929, was held constitutional today
in a decision OF the state supreme court
The decision was in the case OF George
w. Bays, a Missoula barber, who was
fined in district court for failure to
buy a license"
This decision will be generally ap-
plauded in labor circles and by Mon
tana BARRIERS, excepting the few dis
gruntled critics who were continually
raving about the constitutionality of the
law passed by the legislative committee
OF which | happened to be chairman.
The decision is progressive and i~ustifies
the belief that the several opinions rem
dered by our former attorney general
would stand the supreme test. He
also ruled that all unlicensed BARRIERS
whether they had been formerly lie
ensed or not) should pay their SIS fees
and apply for examination. In other
words the law means that a person
holding an expired certificate is not
a registered barber in amy sense; an
expired certificate is no certificate at
all, and is not subject to renewal ex-
cept by examination.
During 1888 the Montana State
Board OF Barber Examiners became
involved in a court case On this point,
and, when the matter was called to the
attention OF Attorney General Maggie,
he reversed the decision Of his predec-
essor, suggesting that, if the Board did
not wish to abide by his ruling they
institute a test case to obtain a court
ruling. Evidently the Board conclud-
ed that the only solution to their many
unhappy problems was to follow the
advice by the present attorney general
and institute a test case to obtain a
court ruling.
Subsequently the gentlemen men
toned above, Mr.. Bays OF Missoula,
was convicted in justice court on a
charge OF barbering without a license
after entering a demurrer declaring the
law unconstitutional He wa ordered
to serve 10 days in jail and pay a fine
Of $50, but was released on bonds when
he appealed to district court. In dis
ltriot court the justice court decision
was upheld, and Bays was ordered to
comply with the judgment, but appeal
/ II e. tn,. @a@1vI 4ea4a A1Er k4s1aa IN
1.-THE supreme court. A transcript on
the appeal was prepared and submitted
to the clerk of the supreme court,
whereupon action was taken by the
highest state court and MIR. Bays was
once more the loser. Lack Of space
prohibits printing the decision in full.
We publish herewith pertinent exhibits
OF the document
1t has been quite generally held that
regulating the practice of barbering,
like laws regulating various other trad
es and professions, is within the pur-
view OF the police power OF the state.
Defendant does not question the pow
or and right OF the legislature to pro-
hibit persons from practicing the call
ing OF a barber without first having
obtained a license or certificate. He
does contend that this act is invalid
for the reason that Sec. 4 thereof I'M
duly discriminates against him and in
favor OF those who were %practicing
barbering in this state at the time the
act went into effect. He argues that,
since he was engaged in the occupa-
ton of ~barbering in the state of Mis-
souri, prior to August, 1929, he is en-
titled t the same privileges accorded
to BARRIERS who were engaged in the
business in Montana at that time. He
asserts, that, in denying him his privi-
lege, the act %contravenes the Fourteen
tn Amendment Of the Federal Consti-
tuition that there existed no reason
able ground for distinction between
BARRIERS who were practicing in this
state and those practicing elsewhere at
the same time, and that such a CLASH
f%ication is discriminatory.
We think this position is untenable.
The same question has arisen in num-
erous cases throughout the country up
on facts that have been practically
identical with those involved here. A
reading Of the cases discloses that it
has been uniformly held that such a
distinction does not violate the Four
teenth Amendment of the United
States.
Accordingly we hold here that Chap
ter III, Laws Of 1929, does not violate
any constitutional provision to which
our attention has been directed. 1t fol-
lows that the judgment Of the District
Court must be affirmed.