delivered the opinion of the Court.
Sеction 2, of c. 145, Laws of Utah, 1921, as^amended by c. 52, § 2, Laws of 1923, and c. 92, Laws of 1929,' provides:
“ It shall be a misdemeanor for any person, company, or corporation, to display on аny bill board, street car sign, street car, placard, or on any other object or place of display, any advertisement of cigarettes, cigarette papers, сigars, chewing tobacco, or smoking tobacco, or any disguise or substitute of either, except that a dealer in cigarettes, cigarette papers, tobaccо or cigars or their substitutes, may have a sign on the front of his place of business stating that he is a dealer in such articles, provided that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the advеrtising of cigarettes, cigarette papers, chewing tobacco, smoking tobacco, or any disguise or substitute of either in any newspaper, magazine, or. periodicаl printed or circulating in the State of Utah.”
The Packer Corporation, a Delaware corporation engaged in billboard advertising and authorized to do business in Utah, was prоsecuted under this statute for displaying a large poster advertising Chesterfield cigarettes on a billboard owned by it and located in Salt Lake City. The poster was displayed pursuant tо a general contract for advertising Chesterfield cigarettes, made by the defendant with an advertising agency in the State of Ohio. Both the poster and the cigarettes advertisеd were manufactured without the State of Utah and were shipped into
*108
it by Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, a foreign corporation. The defendant claimed that the statute viоlates several provisions of the Federal Constitution; the objections were overruled; and the defendant was convicted and sentenced. On the authority of its recent deсision in
State
v.
Packer Corp.,
It is not denied that the State may, under the police power, regulate the business of selling tobacco products, compare
Gundling
v.
Chicago,
First.
The contention mainly urged is that the statute violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; thаt in discriminating between the display by appellant of tobacco advertisements upon billboards and the display by others of such advertisements in newspapers, magazines or periodicals, it makes an arbitrary classification. The history of the legislation shows that the charge is unfounded. In Utah no one may sell cigarettes or cigarette papers without a license.
1
Since 1890, it has been the persistent policy, first of the Territory and then of the State, to prevent the use of tobacco by minors, and to discourage its use by adults. Giving tobacco to a minor, as well as selling it, is a misdemeanor.
2
*109
So is permitting a minor to frequent any place of business while in the act of using tobacco in any form.
3
Mere possession of tobacco by the minor is made a crime.
4
And smoking by anyone in any enсlosed public place (except a public smoking room designated as such by a conspicuous sign at or near the entrance) is a misdemeanor.
5
In 1921, the .legislature enаcted a general prohibition of the sale or giving away of cigarettes or cigarette papers to any person, and of their advertisement in any form. Laws of Utah, 1921, c. 145, §§ 1, 2. Aftеr two years, however, the plan of absolute prohibition of sale was abandoned in favor of a license system. Laws of Utah, 1923, c. 52, § 1. But the provision against advertisements was retained, broadened to include tobacco in most other forms. In 1926, this statute was held void under the commerce clause, as applied to an advertisement of cigarettes manufactured in another State, inserted in a Utah newspaper which circulated in other States.
State
v.
Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Co.,
Moreover, as the state court has shown, there is a difference which justifies the classification between display /advertising and that in periodicals or newspapers: “ Billboards, street car signs, and placards and such are in a class by themselves. They are wholly intrastate, and the restrictions apply without discrimination to all in the same class. Advertisements of this sort are constantly before the eyes of observers on the streets and in street cars to be seen without the exercise of choice or volition on their part. Other forms of advertising are ordinarily seen as a matter of choice on the part of the observer. The young peoрle as well as the adults have the message of the billboard thrust upon them by all the arts and devices that skill can produce. In the case of newspapers and magazines, therе must be ■•some seeking by the one who is to see and read the advertisement. The radio can be turned off, but not so the billboard or street car placard. These distinctions cleаrly place this kind of advertisement in a position to be classified so that regulations or prohibitions may be imposed upon all within the class. This is impossible with respect to newspapers and magazines.”
Second.
The defendant contends that to make it illegal to cárry out the сontract under which the advertisement was .displayed takes its property without due process of law because it arbitrarily curtails liberty of contract. The contention is without merit. The law deals confessedly with a subject within the scope of the police power. No' facts are brought to our attention which establish either that the evil aimed at does not exist or that the statutory remedy is inappropriate.
O’Gorman
&
Young
v.
Hartford Fire Insurance Co.,
Third.
The defendant contends also that the statute imposes an unreasonable restraint upon interstate commerce because it prevents the display on billboards of posters shipped from another State. It does not appear from the record that the defendant is the owner of the posters. Its interest is merely in its billboards located in the State, upon which it displays advertisements for which it is paid. So far as the posters are concerned, assuming them to be аrticles of commerce, compare
Charles A. Ramsay Co.
v.
Associated Bill Posters,
Affirmed.
Notes
Laws of Utah, 1921, c. 145, § 1, as amended, Laws of 1923; c. 52, § 1; Laws of 1925, c. 68; Laws of 1930, c. 5, § 1.
Laws of Utah, 1890, c. 65, § 1, as amended, Laws of 1911, c. 51; Laws of 1930, c. 5, § 1 (k).
Laws of Utah, 1921, c. 145, § 3. See Laws of 1923, c. 52, § 1.
Laws of Utah, 1903, c. 135, as amended, Laws of 1911, c. 51; Laws of 1913, c. 59.
Laws of Utah, 1921, c. 145, § 4, as amended, Laws of 1923, e. 52, § 4.
A contention was made in argument that the State had not in fact acted upon this basis of classification since the statute mаkes no distinction as to newspapers and magazines circulating solely in intrastate commerce. But the record does not indicate the existence of any such publicаtions. Moreover, the administrative difficulties of any effort to make the applicability of the statute depend upon the character of the circulation of a particular newspaper or magazine" would be such as to justify the exclusion of the entire class.