These two cases involve the same question and were by stipulation consolidated for the purpose of appeal. The complaint in each action contains a charge that defendant had engaged in the business of contracting for plumbing work in the City of Sioux Falls without first having procured a license as required by ordinance. They contended that the ordinance is unconstitutional in that it violates Sections 1 and 2, Article VI, of the state Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Trial to the court without a jury resulted in convictions and each of the defendants was fined $200 and costs.
The ordinance in question requires that a person desiring to engage in the business of a contracting or master plumber or do work as a journeyman plumber shall first make application for and secure a license from the Board of Plumbing Examiners. The board consisting of the plumbing inspector of the city, a master plumber and a journeyman plumber is authorized to adopt such rules and regulations as shall be necessary for the examination of applicants for licenses, and the same shall become effеctive upon approval of the Board of City Commissioners. The ordinance provides that the board shall examine all applicants “as to their knowledge of the rules and regulations governing plumbing” and “determine the quаlifications and fitness” of all applicants. The ordinance further specifically provides that the examinations “shall be of such a character as to test and determine the fitness and qualifications of the apрlicants for the class of license applied for and their ability to properly carry on the plumbing business and work authorized under the license applied for in such manner as to safeguard and preserve the public health, safety and general welfare and in compliance with the regulations and ordinances governing such work.” An applicant for a license must establish by the affidavit of a master or journeyman plumber that he has served at least three years as an apprentice. The license fee for a contracting or master plumber is $100. The annual renewal fee is $50. The license fee for a journeyman plumber is $1. After a license is once issued to a journeyman plumber, he can renew it by paying an annual fee of *220 $1. An applicant aggrieved by action of the board of examiners may apply to the city commission to have the action reviewed and thе commission may affirm, modify or reverse the action and may for good cause order the issuance of a license.
SDC 45.0201(64) provides that a municipality shall have power “to license, tax, and regulate plumbers”. The purport of this, provision is that the power shall be exercised in such manner as municipal officials in their discretion shall determine. The mode of exercise is not prescribed. It is conceded that a municipality acting pursuant to this grant of power may in the interest of the public health require the examination and licensing of persons engaged in the business or occupation of plumbing. In 41 Am.Jur., Plumbers, Electricians, and Other Artisans, § 7, we find this statement of the law: “Although thе business and trade of a plumber may not require the same training and experience as some other pursuits in life, yet a certain degree of training is absolutely necessary to qualify one as a competent and skillful workman, and it is within the legislative police power to require examination or licensing, or both, of those engaging in the plumbing business as master plumbers, employers of plumbers, or journeyman plumbers, for the protection of the public from the incapacity or ignorance of such persons. Important plumbing work calls for plans and designs and requires skilled supervision, and it is some guaranty of the fulfilment of these requirements if the public authorities require that the рlumber employed upon the particular work and his assistants in carrying out the work engaged upon be competently certified and therefore held out to be skilled and capable in that business.”
It is well recognized that if a businеss or occupation is so concerned with public health, safety and welfare as to come within the police power, the limit of the legislative power is regulation and its exercise cannot unduly abridge the right of а citizen to pursue a lawful vocation. The exercise of the power must be reasonable. The doctrine was thus stated by this court in Mundell v. Graph, 62 S. D. 631,
Appellants contend that the requirement of the ordinance that an applicant shall have served an apprenticeship for at least three years as shown by an аffidavit of a master or journeyman plumber imposes an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction upon a lawful occupation; that the ordinance is not definite and certain and does not specify the nature or subject matter of the examination, but vests the examining board with arbitrary power to determine the extent and the nature of the examination and without regard for uniformity; and that the variability of the fees prescribed has no reasonable relation to the public health, safety and welfare and the same are not imposed in exercise of the police power and are disproportionate to the expense incidental to liсensing and regulation.
The section of the ordinance relating to apprenticeship cannot be otherwise construed than as intended to bestow upon master and journeyman plumbers the exclusive right to instruct apрrentices. The only permissible proof of competency to take an examination is an affidavit of a master or journeyman plumber showing that applicant has served as an apprentice for at leаst three years. An applicant otherwise qualified by instruction and training and competent to engage in the business or to pursue the occupation of a plumber is denied the right to take an examination and
*222
obtain a license. In People v. Brown,
The constitutionality of similar provisions with respect to the examination and licensing of undertakers was presented for judicial determination in People v. Ringe,
A municipality has authority to require that a person shall not be granted a license to engage in the business or occupation of plumbing without first passing an examination to determine his competency. We hold, however that the provisions limiting the right to an applicant furnishing an affidavit attesting to his apprenticeship cannot be sustained as a reasonable and vаlid exercise of the police power. This provision prescribing qualifications of applicants being invalid, the entire act must fail. The convictions cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is not necessary to express an opinion concerning the other asserted claims of invalidity.
The judgments appealed from are reversed.