Montana labor news., 1938-02-10
Excerpts from Rankin's
S-Hour Law Argument
lContinued from Page .

There is an additional and COM
pelling consideration which recent
economic experience has brought
into a strong light. The exploita-
ton of a class of workers who are
in an unequal position with respect
to bargaining power and are thus
relatively defenseless against the
denial of living wage is not only
detrimental to their health and well
being but casts direct burden for
their support upon the community.
What these workers lose in wages
the taxpayers are called upon to
pay. The bare cost of living must
be met. We may take judicial no
tice of the unparalleled demands for
relief which arose during the recent
period of depression and still con-
tinue to an alarming extent despite
the degree of economic recovery
which has been achieved. 1t is un-
necessary to cite official statistics
to establish what is of common
knowledge through the length and
breadth of the land"
The legislature has power to make
classifications not subject to review
by the courts unless palpably arbi-
trary. This principle has been held
in Hilger V. Moore, 56 Mont. 146,
upholding the Montana law classify
ing property for purposes of taxa
ton, and again in Quong Wing "
Kirkendall, 80 Mont. Ga, law was
held constitutional imposing a Ii
cense tax upon hand 'laundries but
not steam laundries. And in State
V. Hammond Packing Co, as Mont
343, a law imposing a tax upon
dealers in oleomargarine was up
held The court said.
"The legislature has power to
single out dealers in oleomargarine,
butterine, or imitation of cheese, and
compel them to pay a license, and
if the burden falls upon all such
dealers alike, no one of them is
aggrieved,"
Likewise, in Cunningham v.
Northwestern Impr. Co., Al Mont.
1870, the court held that laws applied
to the coal mining industry were
not class legislation and said:
classification, for purposes of
taxation, or of regulation under the
police power, is a legislative func-
ton, with which the courts have no
right to interfere, unless it is so
clearly arbitrary or unreasonable as
to invade some constitutional right
A state may classify persons and
objects for the purpose of legisla-
ton, provided the classification is
based on proper and justifiable dis
tinctions, and for a purpose within
the legislative power"
In State V. Mckinney, 20 Mont.
BIS, law imposing a license tax
upon dairies milking more than five
cows was upheld. The Court said:
"The question of classification of
objects upon which a license fee is
imposed is purely legislative, and,
in absence Of abuse, will not be in
terfered with by the court"
In City of Butte v. Paltrovioh, 80
Mont. Is, an ordinance regulating
the hours of pawnshops, loan Of
fices and second hand stores only
was upheld.
In State V. Loomis, rs Mont. 88,
the court held that law was not
discriminatory closing dance halls
where admission was charged on
Sunday, but leaving open dance
halls in public parks where no ad-
mission was charged. The court
said:
"The amended Act does not dis
criminate between subjects of the
same class, but does create two dis
tinct classes, based upon location
Bacon v Walker, 2O4 U. S. S11,
81 L. Ed. 499, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289),
and it is not inconceivable that the
legislature had before it ample evil
dence to justify the distinction
made"
The Act in question applies to all
retail stores in towns of $500 or
over. The legislature is presumed
to have exercised a reasonable dis
cretion in making this classification.
The law applies equally and uni
formly upon all persons in similar
circumstances and therefore we sub
init is not class legislation.
Classifications based on differ
ences in population are reasonable.
In Radice v. New York, 264 U. S.
292, a law forbidding employment
of women during certain hours in
hotels in cities of the first and Sec
ond class, was held not discrimina-
tory.
Then in Packard v. Banton, 264
U. S. cited above, involved a law
requiring liability insurance to be
carried on automobiles in cities of
the first class The court said:
I'VE cannot say that there are not
applicable to the streets of
large cities-such as their use by
greater number Of persons, or the
density and continuity of traffic
justifying measures to safeguard
the public from dangers incident to
the operation of motor vehicles
which do not obtain in the case Of
-