*1 accrued. It paid of the statute. The tax was contemplation That vendor to the official. county the real-estate proper end of should as far as we are concerned it is—the be—and matter, made in the no provision tax statute for a refund of excise and collected imposed the. under the circumstances in the case. involved instant Whether statute as written and administered presently should be is matter of tax that must be changed, policy determined the courts. legislature, is affirmed. judgment J., Donworth, Rosellini, JJ., C.
Hill, Foster, con- cur. February 34132. En Banc.
[No. 1958.] Jay B. al., Adams et Respondents, R. Hinkle, Van
Supervisor the Division Children and Youth Ser
vices the Department Institutions, Appellant.1 1Reported (2d) in 322 P. *2 Way, Attorney Stephen Assistant, C. General appellant.
for Horswill), (of Carmody Kahin, & Burton C. Waldo respondents. Detels, Jr., amici
Donald McL. Davidson and Martin P. curiae. supervisor Hinkle, J. Honorable Van R.
Foster, youth department division of children and services appeals permanent injunction in a institutions, from a declaratory (RCW 7.24) enjoin- judgment chapter action (Laws ing enforcing him from the comic book act 1231) chapter p. invalidity. because of its constitutional Respondents, who are retail and wholesale distributors of magazines, including plaintiffs books, comic and who were *3 alleged complaint below, in their that the comic act book is void amendment because it violates the first to the Fed- by applicable eral constitution, made to the states four- prior teenth amendment, and restraint constitutes press, rights guar- are, likewise, freedom of the by § 5, constitution, anteed Art. I, and, of the state vagueness, process procedural required of its denies due The below, fourteenth amendment. court while hold- ing equal protection the act void because it violated the clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Federal consti- §I, 12, constitution, and Art. tution state declined to pass upon questions the other constitutional raised. regulation grave
That the of comic is a matter of books many public exemplified private leg- and concern is may found in the ma- studies, islative reference to which be margin.2 terials collected in 2Duesenberg, Control Their Crime Comic Books: Government and Impact Conduct, 331; Twomey, 7 Mercer L. Rev. The Citi on Juvenile Study Extragovern A and Control: zens’ Committee Comic-Book Contemporary Restraint, 621;
mental Law Problems Lockhart & 20 & Obscenity, McClure, Literature, Constitution, The Law of and the 38 295; Chafee, Communications; L. 1 Government & Mass Minn. Rev.
766 void specified by’the act is on the’two grounds,
While-the us to below, of the compels court importance problem all of the constitutional issues deal with raised. The act summarized as follows: may be are a factor that crime comic Section declares books therefore, in the is, and the act public juvenile delinquency, interest. an of the that the exercise legislation declares
Section and construction of its pro- a liberal enjoins police power visions. wholesale, retail, dealer, supervisor 3 defines
Section for book, being important latter definition alone comic and is as follows: present purposes, “ book, magazine pamphlet, ‘Comic means book’ of which consists a major part for profit, sold or distributed Censoring Legal Media of Mass Desmond, Problems Involved Marquette 38; the Consti- Communication, Rev. Crime Comics L. tution, L. Rev. 237. 7 Stanford legislation importance field in the of state of the “As an indication Sug- control, in its The Council State Governments of comic book reg- Legislation Program gested 1957 included a model statute State -for although attaching comics, ulating also caveat crime and sex legislative self-regulation preferable industry action.” was effective St. L. Jour. 18 Ohio Legislative Program also, Suggested See, Council State 1957, pp. Governments, State 105-107. problem point discriminating study from the British For especially chapter Obscenity (1956), view, Stevas, Law and the see English Comics,” pages other entitled “Youth and 198-203. appendix. foreign in the statutes are collected partic duty previous restraint cases is to decide 3“The Court’s these gradually developing disputes just criteria ular in a manner while through licensing system might determined which the terms of a valid *4 knowledge Amendment. Local officials and of the First a law Supreme de ascertain from the Court’s lower be able to courts should properly ordi a drawn statute or idea of what constitutes cisions some nance, It Court will not declare unconstitutional. is one the laws, but it its function to assist function of the Court to write model by deciding legislators that, a cases taken as valid statutes write guide. pattern whole, as a The Court delineate a consistent and serve duty: pattern must delineated be one law has an additional acting good possible public find it officials faith to follow. makers and perform.” Berns, Freedom, failed to Vir functions the Court has These Amendment The First 82. tue &
767 drawings depicting telling story or aof real or fanciful event drawings setting events, or series of awith substantial number of said spoken
forth the words of characters pointers, brackets, enclosures, with or such other plainly speaking means as will indicate the character words: Provided, however, That no comic section of regularly published daily weekly newspaper shall be purposes deemed a ‘comic to be book’ for the of this act.” possession 4 Section makes of comic books or thereof sale prior with intent to crime, sell without license a and im- poses increasing penalties subsequent an scale of vio- lation.
Section 5 creates rule of evidence that all comic books appeal presumption will minors, and. that such cannot they overcome statements that were not intended for minors. prescribes
Section 6 the fees for licenses. separately Sections 7 dealt with hereafter, de- prescribe penalties. nounce comic a crime, book sales as prohibits Section tie-in sales.
Section 10 authorizes the refusal of a license, or the rev-
already
ocation of
issued, for the violation
one
of RCW
prohibits
9.68.010, the sale of obscene literature.
hearings
upon complaints
Administrative
are sanctioned
applications by
addressed to license
section
Section
deals with the refusal to license or the revo-
cation of a license
of an
interest in the business of
suspended
a wholesaler whose license -hasbeen
or revoked.
requires
supervisor
Section
dealers to furnish the
every
copies
three
comic book before distribution or sale.
authority.
Section
deals with administrative
adoption
Until the
of the fourteenth amendment,4
.apply
eight
states,
the first
amendments did not
but
by repeated
now settled
decisions of
United States
Mayor
City
Baltimore,
4Baron v. The
&
Council
768 court, collected in the that the fourteenth supreme margin,5 amendment made the amendment prohibition against first the freedom freedom abridging statutes speech recognized to states.6 We have so it. State press applicable 860, (2d) (2d) ex rel. v. 39 239 P. Armstrong, Holcomb Wn. Court, (2d) rel. 545; Superior State ex v. 16 Wn. Bolling 373, 133 803.7 (2d) P. con must statute urges presume we
Appellant
Commission,
Tax
and relies
stitutional
Gruen v. State
upon
ex rel.
v.
1,
651;
35
211
State
(2d)
(2d)
Campbell
Wn.
P.
Case,
24;
Lang
and Poolman v.
334,
(2d)
182
47 P.
Wash.
don,
448,
94
The
sweep
law
from enacting
constitution
the state
precludes
1292,
105,
Pennsylvania,
Ed.
63 S. Ct.
U. S.
87 L.
319
5Murdock v.
Alabama,
88,
870, 891,
81;
L. Ed.
U. S.
84
Thornhill v.
310
146 A. L. R.
Griffin,
444,
949,
1093,
736;
L. Ed.
58 S. Ct.
60
Lovell
303 U. S.
82
v.
S. Ct.
278,
255;
DeJonge
353,
666;
Oregon,
57 S.
Gros
81 L. Ed.
Ct.
v.
299U. S.
444;
660,
jean
233,
Co.,
Ct.
S.
80 L. Ed.
56 S.
v. American Press
297 U.
625;
Minnesota,
697,
1357, 51 S.
Strom
Near
283
L. Ed.
Ct.
v.
U. S.
75
berg
1117,
532,
California,
359,
R.
L. Ed.
51 S. Ct.
73 A. L.
v.
283 U.
75
S.
1138,
625;
652,
1484;
York,
Ct.
S.
69 L. Ed.
45 S.
Gitlow v. New
268 U.
454,
879,
Colorado,
51
In v. Wilson, Inc. 343 495, 504, U. S. L. Ed. 96 1098, 72 777, S. Ct. the court further said: light history
“In the of the First Amendment’s and of the heavy Near decision, the has a State burden to demonstrate challenged presents excep- that the limitation here an tional case.”
It in C. 442, is stated 16 J. S. 99: 388, rights, privileges, “On the hand, other where and im strong pre munities of the involved, citizen are the usual sumption constitutionality apply. in favor of does not This right thought, speech, is true where the of freedom of press, religion, assembly, association, is or of or of questions involved, raised, so that when are these justifying application burden is on the state of its in each determining validity In instance. aof statute which appears right specifi on its face to limit the exercise of a cally protected presumption constitution, validity scope; a narrowed its and where statute de parts precepts practices the traditional Amer lawmaking, judiciary ican the intendment cus constitutionality tomarily in favor of the entertains much of its force.”8 statute loses 77, 93, 513, 448, Cooper, L. Ed. Ct. A. 8Kovacs v. 336 U. S. 93 69 S. 10 York, 558, 562, 1574, (2d) 608; U. 92 L. Ed. S.
L. R. Saia v. New 334 S. 68 Alabama, 501, 509, 265, 276; 1148; U. 90 L. Ed. Ct. Ct. Marsh v. 326 S. 66 S. 516, Collins, 430, 315; L. v. Thomas 89 Ed. 65 S. Ct. Follett McCormick, 573, 577, 938, 717, 152 U. 88 Ed. A. L. R. 321 S. L. 64 S. Ct. 317; 438; Massachusetts, S. 88 Ed. Prince v. U. L. 64 S. Ct. (2d) Busey 592, the Columbia, F. v. District Congress relating constitutionality to the Dis- of an act of regulating all mer- Columbia, the street sale of trict of prior except newspapers license, was without chandise Busey challenged. sustained, v. District act Earlier the was Rutledge, (2d) Judge Columbia, 129 F. but Circuit of afterwards Rutledge of the United States su- Mr. Justice preme The decision was reversed court, dissented. court, 319 87 L. Ed. U. United States appeals Upon the court of said: remand S. Ct. religion speech, press, are entitled to “Freedoms of they preferred position are ‘of the constitutional liberty.’ They very are of ordered essence of scheme directly groups only persons con- essential not community. political Our whole cerned to the entire but Any system depends upon interference them. and social with them is not an to the cor- but obstacle an abuse *7 they essential, the are Because rection of other abuses. religion guarantees Amendment, within the speech, press, in the First of free guarantees, though are all constitutional process ‘liberty’ protected due which is And in the recent Amendment. clause of the Fourteenth right Supreme a flag said: ‘The of Court case the salute may utility public example, regulate, a well for to State power process concerned, test is so far as the due include, Virginia v. Education Pennsylvania, supra; Board West Murdock v. of 1178, 1628, L. 641, Ct. 147 A. Barnette, 624, 639, 63 S. 87 L. Ed. U. S. 319 600, 608, 1691, 62 Ct. 674; Opelika, 584, 86 L. Ed. S. 316 U. S. R. Jones v. 296, Connecticut, 514; 84 Ed. 1231, L. Cantwell v. 141 A. L. R. State, 147, 1352; 308 S. 1213, 900, U. A. R. Schneider 128 L. 60 S. Ct. Co., 146; Products 304 155, States v. Carolene 60 Ct. United L. Ed. S. 1234, 152-53, Ct. 778. L. Ed. 58 S. U. S. expressed by contrary Jackson in his dis- A Mr. Justice view was Brinegar senting opinion States, U. 93 L. Ed. in v. United S. 69 S. as follows: Ct. promulgated philosophy recently that some “When this Court has preferred posi- rights are to ‘a from the Constitution entitled derived p. 166; Pennsylvania, 105, 115, tion,’ 319 U. dissent at Murdock v. S. agreed. give 558, 562, York, I cannot Saia v. New 334 U. have not We relegating rights preferred position without others some constitutional thereby position; no firsts without to a deferred we can establish estab- wanting lishing are not that Fourth Amendment Indications seconds. tacitly secondary relegated rights, as to a freedoms are marked be position.” deferred impose legislature may- all of to have the restrictions which a adopting. speech
a “rational basis” for But freedoms of press, assembly, may worship of of and of not be in- fringed grounds.’ Supreme on such slender The has Court suggested specifically may that these freedoms entitled be special respect proof treatment constitutionality on to the of facts legislation depends. which the In sus- taining regulation, purely commercial the Court said: supporting legislative judgment ‘The existence of facts presumed, regulatory legislation affecting for is nary be ordi- pronounced commercial transactions is not un- light in the constitutional unless generally the facts made known or preclude assumed it is of such a character as to assumption it rests some rational basis * * * may scope operation . There be narrower constitutionality presumption legislation ap- when pears specific prohibition on its face to be within a Constitution, Amendments, those of the first ten equally specific which are deemed held when to be em- ” within Fourteenth.’ braced position speaking This court has taken the same when, Judge through the late Olson in State ex rel. Holcomb v. Armstrong, supra, it said: presumption constitutionality “There is no in favor any regulation involving rights.” civil pattern bring basic act is to in to our despised censorship expired England
law the seventy-two years Congress before9 the Continental de independence. our Now, clared more than two and one later, half centuries has recreated it Washington by requiring anyone selling a license of *8 possessing magazine, pamphlet for book, sale or con sisting drawings “depicting telling story of or a of a real or fanciful events, event or series of with a substantial drawings setting spoken number of the forth the said pointers, brackets, words of characters with or en indicating speaking closures,” the character such words. By may possess of act, terms no one sell or even History English 6 Holdsworth’s oí Law 379. magazine, pamphlet purposes for of sale book, a
such he first obtains a license. unless magazine pamphlet, person book, a If a sells such punished, selling for license, he is some- without a selling thing may harmful, but for which be considered prior without a license. This device is restraint its abhorrent form. most punishment subsequent
Prior restraint and have been distinguished legal scholar, Professor a differentiated in the School, Thomas I. Emerson of the Yale Law follow- ing passages: roughly speaking, concept prior restraint,
“The of deals upon speech imposed or other with official restrictions expression publication. Prior of in advance of actual forms distinguished subsequent punish- restraint ment, is thus penalty imposed after the communica- is a having punishment made tion has been made as a it. generally, system prior Again speaking a of restraint would occurring system prevent all; communication from at a of subsequent punishment allows communication but penalty imposes course, the deterrent after the event. Of penalty may operate prevent a com- effect a later being . . made. . munication from ever be observed at doctrine should “Several features place, the In doctrine deals the outset. the first The issue form rather than of substance. limitations of may impose particular government is not whether restriction public expression, an area of substance obscenity newspapers, forbidding but whether may particular method, such as advance do so copy. screening newspaper words, restrictions other validly imposed enforced when subse- which could be attempted punishment if quent forbidden are, nevertheless, underlying major by prior considerations restraint. prior therefore, are matters of restraint, doctrine enforcement, techniques methods of administration, objectives operation, the basic effect their Contemporary Problems 20 Law and Amendment.” First chapter comic books 1, crime In Laws of delinquency juvenile and to contribute to are declared to legislation is not restricted Yet, crime. be a source of *9 subsequently books,” to “crime comic nor men- are such anywhere hand, tioned in the act. the other a license On required any magazine, book, is for the sale of pamphlet, either harmful or innocent, adults or to juveniles alike. any super-
The act is devoid standards which the guided issuing entirely visor is to be a license. It is left caprice. deny may to his whim and He issue or super- reason, for no reason. Section authorizes suspend visor to a license, refuse or to or revoke one already issued, if he shall find the dealer that has violated relating obscenity (RCW 9.68.010). the criminal law to A jurisdiction competent conviction in a court of is not re- quired purpose, supervisor for this but that the shall find that a has violated the dealer criminal law. We need not stop inquire if this section tenth violates the amend- provides prosecutions ment, which that criminal speedy public impartial defendant “have shall trial an jury county charged of the in which the offense is to have right appeal been committed and the in all cases.” provides hearing upon Section 11 complaint for a oppos- ing the issuance of already a license or the revocation of one granted. again, But guide no standards are established to supervisor in such determination and there is no requirement any hearing that ever be held.
The statute struck prior down as an unconstitutional supra, restraint in Near v. Minnesota, authorized the injunctive process prohibit publications future newspaper prior because of scandalous articles. The opinion following significant court’s passages: contains the determining “In protec- extent of the constitutional generally, universally, tion, it has been if not considered purpose guaranty prevent the chief pre- of the upon publication. vious restraints . . . undoubtedly protection “That true; even as to previous absolutely restraint is not unlimited. But the recognized only exceptional limitation has been cases: exceptional places “The nature of its limitations in a liberty light general conception strong up press, historically considered and taken Federal although principally exclu- meant, has Constitution, *10 censorship.” sively, previous immunity from restraints or by the United was next dealt with restraint Previous supreme 1935, it held void the court when States per gross imposing of of two cent act a tax Louisiana twenty newspapers than with more revenue all history prior The of restraint was thousand circulation. by Sutherland, Mr. Justice for a unanimous summarized Grosjean Co., 233, American Press 297 U. S. court, in v. 444, L. 56 S. Ct. these words: 245, 249, 660, 80 Ed. century adoption prior of to the “For more the than many years for thereafter —his- and, indeed, amendment — tory part persistent on of the British effort discloses abridge expression government prevent of the free to any opinion in an criticize exhibit which seemed to truly, agencies light, opera- however unfavorable tions of the struggle pro- government. between the ponents the ing. Liberty those who asserted that end and of measures to expression right unceas- continuous and free was of ‘Appeal early Milton, in an for the 1644, John As Printing,’ an act of Parlia- Unlicensed assailed of providing censorship just passed ment been which had vigorously publication. press previous He to of the defended public every right make his honest of man impos- previous censure’; and declared views ‘without accept enough finding any sibility man base enough good the same time and at office censor History perform Collett, of the Taxes its duties. allowed to by expired Knowledge, pp. its 4-6. The act own I, on vol. liberty renewed; and never It was terms (The by pointed press out Wickwar became, as thus 15), merely p. ‘a Struggle the Press, Freedom of for the formerly liberty publish right license what without a ” published one.’ could be again in these words: condemned restraint was Previous light it evident said, all has now been “In the respect English law in rules of that the restricted press Constitution when the in force the freedom was accepted by colonists, adopted the American never were preclude meant to Amendment it was First government, the national the Fourteenth Amend- preclude adopting any ment to states, form previous upon printed publications, restraint or their cir- including culation, that which had theretofore been effected these two well-known and odious methods.” Grosjean v. American Co., 233, Press 80 Ed. 249, L. 660,56S. Ct. 444. requirements question
The license of the act in are not essentially different than the held ordinance unconstitu tional in Griffin, Lovell v. 303 U.S. L. Ed. prohibited S. Ct. 666, distribution of all liter prior permit. January ature without On 13, 1958,in Staub City Baxley, (2d) 355 U. 2 L. Ed. again S. Ct. the United States court reviewed prior restraint cases and reiterated its in unmis views *11 language. takable long
“It is settled of recent line decisions of this Court that an which, one, ordinance like this makes the peaceful enjoyment of which freedoms the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled an will of by requiring permit may official—as or license granted or withheld the discretion of official— censorship prior an upon is unconstitutional restraint enjoyment City Baxley, the supra. of those freedoms.” Staub v. question
The is act void on its face it requires prior publication license for the of all comic good books, harmful, harmless and and bad alike. While ostensibly minors, aimed at sales to it is not so limited. applies people.10 It to all sales and to all dealing prior
Other cases with statutes void because of margin.11 collected in restraint are availability prior keep 10Whilethe of the restraint device to materials away which are considered from children harmful was alluded to Massachusetts, 158, 645, 438, Prince v. 321 U. 88 L. Ed. 64 no S. S. Ct. touching problem other case that issue has come to our notice and the is presented by express Consequently, opinion not this record. we no upon it. York, Alabama, supra; supra; Burstyn, v. 11Saia New Thornhill v. Inc. Holmby Vaughn, Wilson, supra; 870, v. Productions 350 v. U. S. 100 L. 776 general argument, attorney placed reliance
In oral
supreme
24,
upon
court June
the three
decided
cases
United
Alberts
them, Roth v.
States and
Two of
(2d)
1304,
Ct.
476,
1498,
1
77 S.
354 U. S.
L. Ed.
California,
obscenity.
is con-
All
decided
with
that was
deal
following
in the
sentence:
tained
obscenity
of consti-
hold
within the area
“We
that
press.”
tutionally protected speech or
(Laws
By
1909,
§
criminal code
of the
9.68.010),
chapter
p.
liter-
obscene
207,
951, RCW
249,
cf.
exception,
prohibited
re-
and the license
without
ature is
upon
question
quirements
are not based
the act in
Kingsley
obscenity.
Books,
aspect
case,
the third
While
(2d)
77 Ct.
1 Ed.
S.
U.
L.
Brown,
Inc. v.
put
obscenity
could be
aside
1325, likewise dealt
attorney
ground,
be noticed because
that
it must
general’s
prior
argument
But
restraint.
sanctions
aspect
future distribu-
was limited to the
of the case
published
admitted to be obscene under
tion of a
book
already condemned as such.
law,
York criminal
New
statute,
in full in the
York
which is set out
New
margin
opinion
court
the United
in the
(Kingsley
Brown,
Inc. v.
Books,
States
1325),
(2d)
authorizes officials
seize
77 S. Ct.
L. Ed.
“obscene,
printed
an indecent character which
matter of
filthy,
disgusting,
con-
or which
indecent
lascivious,
lewd,
use or
of indecent or immoral
an article or
tains
instrument
*12
purpose,”
purports
and
immoral use or
to
for indecent or
be
against
injunction
distribu-
the further sale or
authorizes an
(2)
printed
22-a
authorizes
matter. Section
tion of such
entitled to a
offensive materials to be
distributors of the
joined.
day
within one
after issue
trial
Department
Superior
770,
117;
Education
Films v.
76 S. Ct.
Ed.
Maryland,
286;
Ohio,
587,
329, 74 S. Ct.
Niemotko v.
L. Ed.
98
496,
Hague
CIO,
268,
325;
267,
U.
Ct.
v.
307
S.
U.
95 L. Ed.
71 S.
340
Among
Prior
the law review articles are:
L. Ed.
The New York court was at to out that the applicable publication statute was after did apply publications, to future and that the statute was to be contrasted “the with usual features of advance censor ship,” greater and that there nowas interference with the publisher freedom of the or vendor than a criminal prosecution. obscenity, The statute was limited to appeals the court of said that its decision should not be sanctioning injunctive process dealing taken “as with objectionable other or antisocial material, such as libel.” Guarding against the evils condemned in Near v. Minne supra, sota, attention to was directed the fact that injunction applied publication in the Near to case produced distribution “of material to written or in the city sought injunc future,” and so extend to very tion properly which the court “the said trial court refused do.” judges appeals
Three of the New York court of expressed the view the decision should be limited to the point protect one that the first amendment does not obscene against prior books restraint.
The court of the United States affirmed five to separate dissenting opinions. four, three Mr. Justice court, Frankfurter, observed that the state court, injunction application review, under limited in the its question and refused extend book later issues. question course, was, limited to review *13 by the violated constitution was the Federal whether abundantly clear question. The made it in court statute supra, prior decisions, ex- v. California, that Alberts protection publications of the first from the obscene cluded criminal enforce- The court said both amendment. procedure injunctive New the authorized ment and the stage. operated “In each same situ- York at the statute publication; not need after the book the moves ation law public.” passed yet the in into the hands of have either case question for weeks had been on sale several The book in proceeding was distributors instituted, the the when distributing already pub- enjoined book were Referring adjudged to the been obscene. lished which had publications, injunctions applications to future Near on court concluded: solely obscenity § Near, 22-a is concerned “Unlike studiously authoritatively construed, withholds it and, as already yet published and not
restraint found to be offensive.” matters justice in his dissent considered statute The chief of He the lack because of standards. unconstitutional thought con- individual the intent was that, unless publication, there character sidered instead prior an unconstitutional restraint. existed Douglas thought prior Black void Justices thought it unconstitutional Mr. Justice Brennan restraint. jury provision that a should deter- because there was no objectionable publication question in was mine whether obscene.12 Washington 12Judge condemned a in eastern district of Driver great great preponderance magazines, number of nudist depicted well-developed young ap “shapely, women illustrations Copies
pearing nude,” in United States v. 4200 International Supp. meaning Journal, as obscene within the U. S. F. importation pamphlets. A., prohibiting of obscene C. books 9th) appeals (C.C.A. (2d) F. affirmed in 247 Mon The court On day, certiorari, the United States on December court States, appeals v. United No. remanded to the Mounce court of light supra. States, Roth v. United consideration prior We have here restraint the most unrestricted *14 licensing century form. It is a act in the seventeenth mold and is void on its face. integral is an
Because distribution element of free supra; press, Griffin, dom of the Lovell v. New Winters v. York, 507, 333 U. S. L. Ed. 68 Ct. it. is respecting phases covered what has said other of been separate unnecessary statute, the discussion is re spondents’ argument unlawfully regulates § that 4 distribu magazines. tion and sale why §§
There is still another reason
9 are
apply
void. Both
sales,
is,
to all
sections
to minors and
essentially
adults alike. Neither section is
different from
Michigan penal
margin,13
the
in
code,
set out
the
which was held unconstitutional
court of
the
Michigan,
United States Butler v.
352 U. S.
1 L.
(2d)
condemning
Ed.
412, 77
S. Ct. 524.
that act as
unconstitutional
amendment,
under the first
the court held:
quarantining
general
that,
“The State insists
thus
reading public against
men
is
rugged
grown
books not too
for
juvenile
and women
order
innocence,
to shield
exercising
power
general
promote
its
to
welfare.
Surely,
pig.
this is
burn the
Indeed,
to
house to roast the
Michigan has,
the Solicitor General of
with characteristic
Michigan
spe-
candor,
the Court that
has a statute
advised
cifically designed
against
protect
to
children
its
obscene
13“‘Any person
import, print, publish, sell, possess
who shall
with
give
sell, design, prepare,
loan,
away,
intent
to
distribute or offer for
sale,
book, magazine, newspaper,
pamphlet, ballad, printed
writing,
publication
paper, print, picture, drawing, photograph,
thing,
or other
including any recordings, containing obscene, immoral, lewd of lascivi
language,
obscene, immoral,
prints, pictures,
lewd or
ous
lascivious
figures
tending
descriptions,
depraved
to incite
to
minors
violent or
manifestly tending
acts,
corruption
or immoral
to the
of the morals of
youth,
any family,
place
into
shall introduce
school or
of education
buy, procure,
possession, any
book,
or shall
receive or have in his
pamphlet, magazine, newspaper, writing, ballad, printed paper, print,
publication
picture, drawing, photograph,
thing,
or other
either for the
purpose
sale, exhibition,
circulation,
loan or
or with intent to intro
any family,
place
education,
into
duce the same
guilty
school or
shall be
”
Michigan,
380, 381,
of misdemeanor.’ Butler v.
1 L.
(2d) 412,
Ed.
matter But statute. the morals violating appellant for was not convicted this legislation reasonably us restricted “We have before evil which it said to deal. The incidence is population of the adult of this enactment reduce reading only Michigan for children. It what fit arbitrarily thereby curtails one of those liberties Clause of individual, now enshrined the Due Process history Amendment, Fourteenth has attested prog- indispensable for the maintenance and conditions society.” aof free ress present purposes, may in order assumed, that,
It legislature might protect restrict evil, minors them, this statute literature to but the sale of offensive *15 people, prohibits adults and of comic to all all sales books legislature juveniles §In “crime comic 1, the found alike. contributing delinquency factor to the to be a basic books” comic or minors, it not define “crime books” of but did prohibits books, the act sale of such but restrict good and “crime comic books” books, bad, of all sale comic penalties did limit to comic Nor noncrime books. and specifically prohibited but all sales. It was minors, to sales supra, Michigan, in Butler that is uncon- this decided stitutional. urge vague
Respondents §§ 7, 9, and 10 are so right procedural pro- to violate their of due indefinite as essentially §§ cess; 7 and 9 are different from the York held New criminal statute unconstitutional Winters supra: York, v. New
Section is:7 print, publish, design, “No shall dealer distribute, prepare, import, exhibit, dis- (2) of Section possess sell, play, intent or to sell or with penal the New York code any appealing to or offer to comic book sell likely read or at minors reads follows: to be looked years eighteen age under of which is Obscene “‘§1141. indecent; obscene or or is devoted prints and articles “ exploitation publication fic- to the or person ‘1. A . . . bloodshed, violent tional or actual deeds of who, “ immorality lust, de- crime or characters utters, Prints, ‘2. picted fanciful, as real or human or either publishes, gives sells, lends, reasonably inhuman, to tend so massed as to away, distributes depraved to or or incite minors violence shows, or or his has person.” against immoral acts possession with intent to give away, sell, lend, dis- Section 9 is: show, or or oth- tribute “Any sale, who or dealer sells distributes offers for erwise possession commercially gift distribution, loan, or has in his or sell, commercially, any book, pamphlet, intent who or distribute magazine, newspaper offers for sale or commer- or otherwise appealing printed paper cial to or comic book distribution other de- likely publication, or be read looked at voted to the eighteen age years, up principally minors under which is made police publication news, to the and ex- devoted of criminal ploitation reports, of fictional or actual deeds or accounts bloodshed, pic- lust, deeds, violent crime or immoral- criminal ity by depicted tures, characters either as real or stories deeds fanciful, inhuman, bloodshed, human or so massed as lust reasonably crime; tend to incite vio- minors to . . . depraved against lence or the meanor. or immoral acts “ person, guilty guilty shall be of a misde- ‘Is of a mis- ’ ” Upon demeanor, a second conviction for vio- . . . section, lation of this the dealer be shall punished upon gross misdemeanor, as for a felony.” a third conviction as for a York New court the New save appeals attempted York 'by statute it a reading into requirement material offensive so as to become “vehicles “massed” violent and inciting against crimes” depraved per- *16 son. said that court because lewdness was punishable
under (and another statute is true in Wash- likewise 9.68.010), it is the as an incitation to ington, RCW massing crime that is the element. important
The United States court said such construction act by the into the to the same extent as if done words put the itself. text of the
That was the Wash- language incorporated ington statute. case, the summarized require- Winters court the the
ment of definiteness as follows: vague indefinite, “It is settled that a statute and so interpreted, scope permit form language tection of the as as and as within the of its fairly punishment pro- the of the incidents within guarantee speech face, void, of free on its contrary Stromberg the U. S. v. Fourteenth Amendment. Lowry, U. S.
California,
369;
Herndon
limiting
expres-
A
242, 258.
failure of a statute
freedom of
give
punished
sion to
fair notice of
and
what acts will be
prohibitions against expres-
such
sions,
statute’s inclusion of
protected
principles
Amendment,
the
of the First
rights
procedural
process
an
under
due
accused’s
violates
and freedom
U.
press.”
speech
York,
or
v. New
of
Winters
92 L. Ed.
783 required. conspiracy See person. Musser v. new meaning. a crime is to commit No effective notice not an Utah, U. 95. It is 333 S. law technical or common has no crime. The clause gained meaning light from be can as to Nor Law Penal Article of the whole or the section as under which Grocery appears. Cohen As in the said 516, 41 Company supra, p. L. Ed. [255 U. 65 case, 89 S. 298]: Ct. “ open, in- conceivable therefore, widest ‘It leaves scope quiry, of against.’ can foresee and the result no one of which guard adequately can foreshadow no one Appeals does the Court as construed “The statute punishment obscene, as form- to the indecent limit erly bloodshed, of deeds of such stories understood. When magazines, many are massed so as to the accused as incite to violated. It does not crimes, the statute is violent publications could an honest distributor seem to us that ignored pro- might have held to he know when hibition. horrors, un- of tales of war otherwise Collections might exceptionable, found to be ‘massed’ so as to well be inciting depraved crimes.’ for violent ‘vehicles become vague make an as to criminal innocent is so statute Where it cannot be sustained. Herndon v. under act, a conviction Lowry, 242, 259.” U. 301 S. procedural 9 fail to meet the due 7 and
Sections requirements process of the fourteenth amendment. The It is “overbroad.”14 its face. act void on newspapers exempted (4), By are comic sections requirements. candor, commendable license With from argument attorney general, bar, at our admitted anything publish might print newspapers found in 1208; discussions, Harvard L. Rev. Constitutional see: 61 14For text Certainty Inhibiting for Statutes of Press —Need Law —Freedom 247; Association of Kansas Constitutional Same, of the Bar Journal Obscenity Interpretation Statute Void for of Criminal Statutes — Law — Lawyer 602; Vagueness: Indefiniteness, Dame Void An 23 Notre Statutory Interpretation, 272; Escape 23 Ind. L. Jour. Constitutional Banning Criminal Statute Publications Ex Process —State Law —Due Indefiniteness, ploiting Crime Void for of Violent Pa. L. Accounts 889; Law —Due Process —Statute Held Void for Un Constitutional Rev. 298; certainty, Constitutional Law —Due Cal. L. Rev. Process— 22 So. Unconstitutional, and Articles Statute Held Prints New York Obscene L. Jour. 9 Ohio St. being subject im- restrictions without comic book *18 any entirely Newspapers posed. free of restriction. are Art; by prohibited I, 12 of the is discrimination Such Washington is: constitution which passed granting citizen, class to “No law shall municipal, privileges corporation citizens, other than of or the same terms shall immunities which corporations.” belong equally citizens, all to equal protection fourteenth amendment the the of constitution. to the United States attorney general earnestly this contends that The legislature has classification, a and that is reasonable right classify a for the classi to if there be rational basis equal protection not so when the fication. But this is right claimed under the first clause concerned with a is length by with at The matter was dealt amendment. Virginia supreme in West State court of the United States 87 L. Ed. Barnette, Board Education v. 319U. S. of are contained in 1178. The conclusions reached S. Ct. following paragraph: weighing arguments parties important “In of it is process distinguish due clause of the Four- the between the to teenth Amendment as transmitting an instrument for principles Amendment and cases which which of the First those legislation applied The test of for its sake. it is own Amendment, because it also Fourteenth with the collides principles First, much more of collides with only the Fourteenth is involved. when definite than the test process disappears vagueness the due clause of Much of the prohibitions specific become of the First its stand- when the regulate, example, public right of a to State ard. The process utility may include, far as the due test is so well impose power all of the restrictions which (cid:127)concerned, adopting. may But ‘rational basis’ for have a assembly, press, speech and of wor- and of freedoms grounds. They infringed may slender ship on such not be grave prevent susceptible of restriction are may danger the State law- interests which immediate fully protect. important note that while it is the It is directly upon the which bears Amendment Fourteenth limiting principles specific of the First more State govern finally this case.” Amendment that rights among protected When the claimed are those legislative equal amendment, invasion first protection clause the fourteenth amendment assumes importance. increased words court Michigan City Ansell, Dearborn v. Mich. repetition: N. bear W. rights, wrung grasp oppressors “These from the wilful carnage throughout on countless fields of at centuries gigantic anguish, accepted cost of blood and are the heritage people; they of civilized and for men, free are imperishable deeply graven indubitable and bill —so rights they smudged cannot be out either obsequious hands mailed fists.” *19 separately right guaranteed by if
Even considered from a constitutionality the first the amendment, of such a classifi precarious Only cation is at best. term last the United States Morey (2d) court in Doud, 457, 1 v. 354U. S. Ed. L. exempting 77 1485, S. statute, Ct. held an 1344, Illinois the Express Company regulation American of the sale money equal protection orders, to be void under the clause of the fourteenth In ex amendment. State rel. Bacich v. (2d) Huse, 187 75, 1101, Wash. 59 P. we said that the aim purpose applicable provisions constitutional of both equality the state and Federal constitutions is to secure persons of treatment of all without undue favor on the one hand or hostile discrimination on the other. In Seattle (2d) Rogers, (2d) v. 31, 598, 1498, 6 Wn. 106P. 130A. L. R. required we held a Seattle ordinance invalid licenses exempted purposes for solicitors charitable but commu nity holding fund solicitors. Other cases similar ordinances be statutes to void reasons are same collected margin.15 in Delmore, (2d) 324; Power, (2d) 545, 15Olsen v. v. Inc. Wn. 295 P. 48
Huntley, Ralph Wenatchee, (2d) 191, (2d) 173; v. 39 Wn. 235 P. 34 Wn. Hendrickson, (2d) 638, (2d) 270; (2d) 600, re 209 P. 12 Wn. 123 P. Seattle, (2d) 322; 662, (2d) 91; Manos v. v. 173 Wash. 24 P. Verino Hickey, West, 71, 5; v. 135 Wash. 237 Pac. 133 Wash. Kaufman Clay Brown, 192, 321; & Sherman Co. v. 679, 233 Pac. 131 Wash. 231 Co., 166; W. 246, State v. W. Robinson 628; Pac. 84 Wash. Seattle 146 Pac. 786 the legis to freedom respect press,
With in comic books a may pre lature not exact from dealers from the immunizing newspapers license while publication in the and distribution publication same requirements The equal identical materials. protection provisions I, amendment and Art. of Wash fourteenth § ington constitution forbid. 5, set out in the margin,16 contends
Respondent § due clause of fourteenth amend- process violates I, Art. the state constitution. ment and § life, liberty, property, shall deprived “No be person I, Washington Art. State without due law.” process § Constitution. declaration that all statutory is that argument con- minors, and
comic are presumed appeal books conclud- them, conclusive used becomes sequently may ing presumption in the section that sentence they are not intended declaration be overcome for minors. a statute from creat prohibits
The constitution Donnan, Heiner v. ing a conclusive presumption. Am. Jur. 52 S. Ct. 312, 76 L. Ed. a rule of evi concedes. While attorney general
This the (State Sears, Wn. by statute may dence be created con must a rational there (2d) 337), 103 P. (2d) *20 to constitute prima facts declared nection between the fact be and the proved presumed. of the fact to proof facie 1139; A. 86 L. R. 179. 495; A. 51 L. R. A. 162 L. R. Annotation, con undertake create a The does not section evi may by it be overcome presumption clusive the consti- against does not offend dence, and, therefore, 1086; Locke, Dencker, 42 Pac. Bacon v. Wash. Wash. v. Spokane 547; Camp, 721; Pac. Nathan 38 Wash. In re 83 Pac. County, 76 Pac. 35 Wash. presumed act, purposes all comic shall be of this books the 16“For likely appealing read or looked at minors under the to be to and may presumption age eighteen. not be overcome statements This juveniles book was not intended under the comic to the effect years.” age eighteen the upon. § provisions 514, 527, 16 C. J. tutional relied (d). urges
Respondent question title17 of act in that the the Washington in the II, violation of Art. 19 of consti- tution, of the more infir- but, because basic constitutional already unnecessary noticed, mities we find it resolve this amply issue. It should recur because we have delineated requirements the constitutional in our decided cases. Affirmed. JJ., concur.
Mallery, worth, Weaver, Rosellini, Don (concurring result) objective J. the in Finley, —One majority opinion guide provide is to for the assistance legislators redrafting regulatory in valid, á measure they objec- comics, to crime if relative wish to do so. The recognizes something attempts tive to do constructive —and correlating indepen- functions and actions of—the two government: dent, co-ordinate state branches judicial legislative. highly and the I think this desir- my judgment, majority However, able. the effect opinion preclude attempts considered as whole is to future regulation Specifically, at of comic books. I have in mind very practicable opinion pro- consideration that regulating hibits the the distribution of regulates comic books unless also distribution of newspapers, incidentally, strips which, contain comic unwilling go comic sections. I am that far.
Normally, considering constitutionality courts, legislature, give weight of an enactment of state presumption effect to a of law that such enactments are proving valid, the burden otherwise rests asserting party unconstitutionality. majority opinion judicial presumption states that the of constitu- tionality apply regu- an does not when enactment seeks to guaranteed right agree late a the first I amendment. relating regulating books; 17“AnAct to comic their distribution and prohibiting sale; and sale distribution of certain crime comic books to providing penalties.” minors; *21 currently, proposition a least settled, this is well or that supreme present, the for the decisions of United States agree under the fourteenth that, decisions, court. I also the applicable makes the first amendment to state amendment action. agree foregoing prin- indicated, I
While, as the majority opinion ciples; nevertheless, I believe that the proc- applying the due errs in them in instant case. It is the pro- equal ess of the fourteenth amendment —not its clause picks up makes amend- tection clause—which the first safeguards applicable A determination ment action. state grant equal protection is com- statute does or does not pletely determination that a statute does distinct from a majority process. I believe not violate due does the by holding opinion note that the fails to this distinction constitutionality apply presumption to the does up by legislature in the the comic book classification set grounds— on is invalid classification If statute statute. the (as majority opinion) it fails i.e., stated respondents— equal grant protection to constitutional exclusively invalidity particular is attributable clause) (equal protection itself fourteenth amendment brought application of an the first amendment is not because through process play four- the due clause into is attacked as violative teenth amendment. When statute protection equal clause, it makes no difference religion, classifying animals, cars, is whether always question press; same: Is the is classi- reasonable? fication challenged is violative
It action as is when state rights applied through pro- the due first amendment as presump- fourteenth amendment that the cess clause of the constitutionality inapplicable. Such the situ- was tion case the United States court ation authority by majority. Virginia quoted West State L. Barnette, 319 U. Ed. Board Education right case, 147A. L. R. 674. 1628,63 S. Ct. religion. the freedom of was concerned *22 agree majority I with the that certain sections transgress rights by guaranteed comic book statute the first presumption amendment, that, these, and as to there is no constitutionality. of However, if one section of a statute presumption does not the of receive benefit the of consti- tutionality, deny there no to reason withhold or the bene- presumption fit of the as other to sections which are in no way process rights guaranteed by related due to the the amendment. first presumption the I indicated,
For reasons of believe constitutionality applies determining question of grants equal protection whether the comic book statute problem of the laws. The then is the reasonableness of by considering established the statute. this, classification following we could do well to bear in mind the of words Tigner (1940), Justice Frankfurter v. Texas 84 L. Ed. 60 S. Ct. A. 879, 130 L. R. 1321: equality ‘equal protection’ “The at aims which the clause equality. is not a disembodied The Fourteenth Amendment enjoins protection equal ‘the of laws,’ are not laws propositions. They abstract do not relate to abstract units expressions policy arising A, C, B and are but of of out specific specific difficulties, addressed to attainment of specific ends the use remedies. The Constitution does things require opinion which are different in fact or though they treated in law as were the same.” studying relationship After between crime comics juvenile delinquency, legislature apparently con- strips newspapers cluded the comic carried in were designed not the It then drafted a offenders. statute reach offenders. students, adolescents, Grammar school reading and even numerous adults who are addicted difficulty distinguishing of comic books have no would daily books, such, comic as between comic sections of a weekly my newspaper. or It is view that the classification and fixed a determined reasonable one. (Laws question chapter (4),
The act in 282, 3 pp. 1232) defines comic books as follows: magazine any pamphlet, book, or or dis-
“. . . sold major part profit, a which consists draw- tributed ings depicting telling story a real fanciful event or or of said draw- events, or with substantial number series setting ings spoken words of the characters forth pointers, brackets, enclosures, or such other means speaking plainly indicate the character words: as will regularly Provided, however, That no comic section of weekly newspaper daily published deemed to be shall be (Italics purpose act; of this ...” for the ‘comicbook’ mine.) proviso without the the act is clear to me that even It attempt regulate comic sections does not cover or *23 only page simple newspapers a reason that two— for the newspapers portion devoted to a minor i.e., —is strips. anomalous that the addition of To me it comic seems respon- gratuitous proviso should a holding involved unconstitutional for this court the act sible infringement equal protection clause. as an statutory authority con- that the classification under As majority unreasonable, a recent refer to sideration Morey (1957), supreme court case. v. Doud United States (2d) 1485, Therein, 77 Ct. 1344. 1 Ed. S. 457, 354 U. L. S. purported a which court invalidated statute money issuing exempted companies regulate orders, but all similarity company. I fail to see the between one named regulation company exempting in its of all a named statute money issuing companies us, orders and the statute before strips exempts and comic in sections news- comic which regulation comic papers books. its opinions in Mabee v. Plains me that the White seems to It (1946), Publishing 607, L. 327 U. S. 90 Ed. 66 Ct. S. Co. Publishing Walling (1946), Co. Press and Oklahoma Ct. A. L. L. Ed. 66 S. R. 186, 90 convincing more criteria as to how at least offer better supreme court would resolve classifi- the United States problem case at The aforemen- involved bar. cation constitutionality of a classification concern cases tioned seg- applies standards to certain labor act fair press exempts ments of the others. the course of the opinion in case, the Mabee the court said: “Respondent argues bring Act, it under the while exempt small weeklies or semi-weeklies are reason 13(a) (8), against is to sanction a discrimination daily papers principles in violation of the announced in Grosjean v. American Co., Press 297 U. Volume of frequency circulation, of issue, and area of are distribution improper said to is said that anbe Moreover, basis of classification. lays press the Act a direct burden on the in vio- Grosjean lation of the First Amendment. The case is not in point press singled special here. There the was out for graduated taxation and the tax was in accordance with volume tion. immunity legisla- of circulation. No such vice inheres this press aspects, special As the has business it has no applicable general. from laws to business in exemption [citation] . . . And the of small weeklies and semi-weeklies is not a ‘deliberate and calculated de- penalize vice’ group newspapers. . . . certain [citation] put As we have seen, it was inserted to those papers parity more enterprises. on with other small town . . [citation] . require Fifth Amendment does not full and uniform power. Congress exercise of the commerce may weigh application relative needs and restrict the of a legislative policy to less than the [cita- entire field. . . . ” tion] legislature,
It passing is clear to me that the the statute *24 weighed under consideration, the relative needs and re- application stricted the of to the law areas which re- quired regulation. Congress If the of the United can States validly weekly exempt semiweekly newspapers from applies a newspapers, statute which otherwise to then I see why Washington legislature may no reason state not exempt newspapers strips legislation and their comic designed regulate to comic books. question personally
The is not whether we think comic strips newspapers should have been included; rather, it is whether the had a reasonable basis for ex- empting any them. I fail to find evidence of a “deliberate penalize segment and calculated device” to. a certain of the publishing industry. Publishing Mabee v. White Plains Co., supra. might newspapers opinion majority points out “that
The print publish anything without found in comic book imposed.” being subject That is not the to the restrictions legisla- question. only whether are concerned with We newspapers reasonably do that not ture could conclude many things publish that are comic same found fact books. (1916), Taxicab &
In State v. Seattle Co. Transfer 837, this court a 416, 156 Pac. considered statute Wash. transport passengers made it to for hire unlawful obtaining permit; cities a that act con- in first-class without proviso, tained a as follows: “ provisions apply act ‘That the of this shall not car- to ”Mail.’
riers of U. S. holding proviso did render the this not act void equal protection clause, under the the court said: carriers of the United “Nor does fact that States mails provision exempted act render are from the it void. sufficiently perform a service differentiated from the These ordinary passengers as to carrier form a class them- legislation affecting selves, and other classes of is carriers necessity required The to include them. situation not of suggested corporation monopolizing namely, large appellant’s brief, a in the carry obtaining a contract to the mails and thus jitney city, subject in a not the of traffic hardly possible act, to of consummation. the burden capable permit act not of construction which would carry has a the mails of vehicle who contract the owner city promiscuously over streets of in the run it prosecu- engaged carriage passengers not in the when act, view the such an can contract. As we owner tion of his provisions carry passengers a violation of the without actually transporting the mails over route act while stations, mail he otherwise most convenient between provisions.” its will fall within permit
Similarly, case the act does in the instant newspapers a license; to distribute comic books without grant rights purport proviso news- does not papers. *25 convey majority opinion not intended to the im-
If the privilege grants newspapers proviso plication distributing license, a I its comic books without believe even more tenuous. ratio decidendi to be following are much more It to me the cases seems analogous are the authorities cited the case at than bar majority opinion. (1910), 98, 110 Pac.
In v. McFarland 60 Wash. State inspection providing a the court considered statute containing The was than ten rooms. statute hotels more clearly recognized that held valid. The decision of the court regulatory legislature, promulgating statutes, must a a included within classi- draw line between what is to be excluded, is to and the court deter- fication what be placing mined all of ten or more rooms hotels regulated classification and not within was reasonable arbitrary. us, the statute has defined comic before
books as: magazine pamphlet, book,
"... or sold or dis- profit, major part a tributed for ings or ings setting which consists of draw- telling story depicting or of a real or fanciful event events, series of with substantial number of said draw- spoken
forth the words characters with pointers, brackets, enclosures, such other means speaking plainly as will . indicate the character such words: ” (Italics mine.) . . operative of inclusion exclusion are con- words major phrase part tained in the “a of which.” I think the sufficiently resulting legislative definite to classification is vagueness mani- rule,” the “void for and that it is avoid regula- festly in the hotel as reasonable as classification case, held valid in the MacFarland tion statute which was supra. (1934), (2d) P.
In Austin v. Seattle 176 Wash. city persons 93 A. L. R. excise tax on busi- lending money mortgages exempted na- nesses on chattel banking The court said: tional associations. nothing in the classification here attacked which
“We see arbitrary capriciousness action, or constructive smacks of broadly designated may here fraud. The class or classes making engaged designated those in the business *26 knowledge, of loans, chattel and it is a matter of common making judicial chattel those notice, important take which we doing very many particulars, a dis- loans, are, in tinctively is usual than that which different sort of business banking customary forms of commercial and other money loaning not covered the ordinance.” language quoted, matter of com- it is a
To use the above distinctively doing knowledge newspapers a are mon in comic that done dealers different sort of business books. and discussed to further sub-
Other cases could be set out my disagreement majority; however, to with the stantiate unduly opinion. expand do so would this leg- majority opinion, the In the cited in the instances persons attempted the iden- certain to do islature to allow quite prohibited That is tical act to others. which was legislature thing done in the has different from what legisla- from what statute under consideration —and In the latter cases I have discussed. ture did in the several legislature segregated case, the has cases, in the instant regulated or not covered into classes has the businesses necessary. regulated particular classes as it found thing say newspaper unwilling that a is the same I am think it for the And I do not unreasonable as comic book. and to to this rather obvious conclusion to come necessary regulate the comic find different set laws necessary regulate from that news- business book paper business. agree indicated, I do not with the ma- the reasons
For equal protection jority statute violates the that the view respects, In all other amendment. clause of the fourteenth majority agree and concur in the result I do with reached in this case. JJ., concur J. J., Ott, C. Hunter, Finley,
Hill,