*1 Explanatory accompany title on to such words ballot:
“Yes. I for the amendment.” vote against “No. I vote the amendment.” by prepared are that the titles We convinced Attorney misleading. General are fair and not There nothing proposed in the amendment constitutional germane which not to the ballot titles. The law dоes contemplate express implied powers that all the by proposed created amendment should be set forth imposible in the ballot titles. In fact it would be do statutory provision so and conform to the relative length prepared by of ballot The titles. titles as Attorney fairly argu- General can not be construed to be against ments either for or the constitutional amend- ment. Such can not be said of the titles as submitted appellants.
Finding objection no material to the titles as certi- by Attorney fied to General, affirm wе the same. petition appellants The is dismissed. 4;
Submitted on March 25; briefs reversed and remanded March rehearing denied June STATE v. KINCAID 1015) 288 P. *3 appellant. Newbury Don of Medford for B. Attorney, Godding George District of Medford, Attorney General, I. H. Van of Salem, Winkle State.
100 alleges, substance, indictment
BROWN, J. The a obtained оn without that, 15, 1929, June contrary statute, defen- therefor, and to license unlawfully compensation paid con- him, for to dant, public public hall situate a dance in a dance ducted corporate a in Jackson town Hill, limits Gold county, Oregon, having population 500, of less than a wit, to 442. involved that the statute
The defendant asserts among alleging, other reasons unconstitutional, subject regulation to halls are not therefor, that dance counsel. It is well-estab the state. We cannot follow power police includes lished in this state that law places regulation supervision and and of amusements City of amusement. L. Ass’n See Slovanian & S. City P. Daniels v. Portland, 111 Or. A. L. R. al., Portland et Or. alleged that an relat In the latter case it was ordinance ing requirements occu as to windows for rooms being pied living purpоses for unconstitutional as was and of article in conflict with sections contrary Oregon to the fourteenth Constitution, and of the amendment the constitution United States. regulation by our of that decision case we held city lodging tenements, and houses hotels, under poliсe power subject legislative proper for action, degree regulation that the should reasonable, but arbitrary. cases, in all the reasonableness So, given primarily legislative any judg- statute is judiciary only it ment, will declare invalid manifestly bearing upon when unreаsonable. As this *6 subject, expression following we note the court our appearing City supra: in Portland, Daniels v. police power necessity,
“The is a law of and its growth extent ‘must from to time time conform to the of our industrial and social, commercial life. You cаn- strait-jacket put justice any you not on more than put strait-jacket Cooley’s can on business’: Con- (8th Ed.), p. stitutional Limitations 1227.” The defendant contends that the statute offends against Oregon section article 4, Constitution, which provides: “Every subject act shall embrace but one and mat- properly subject ters connected therewith, which shall expressed in the title.” objection,
In answer to this we refer to the case of State v. Shaw, Or. 287 In that case it alleged by was the indictment that the defendant unlawfully discharged deposited planer and sawdust, shavings and lumber other waste into the waters of the Santiam river violation of section 8 of a statute (Gen. p. 85) protect Laws entitled, “An act to salmon Oregon and other food fishes in the state of upon upon and all waters which this state concur- has jurisdiction, rеpeal,” rent to and etc. A demurrer to the indictment been sustained the trial court, appealed. indictment was dismissed and the state opinion fully The history of the court discusses purpose provision alleged and of the constitutional to against have been viоlated, and the mischief which the determining pre- title was aimed. the issue there sented, court held that the act under which Shaw provisions of law related
was indicted contained
directly
subject,
indirectly to the same
and which
object
foreign
any
expressed in
the title.
wеre
supra,
early
Shaw,
is also
The
case of State
authority
proposition that,
in indictments for
statutory
charge
offenses, it is sufficient to
the crime
thereby
providing
law,
in the
crime
words
certainty
such
as
the defen
set forth with
will advise
imputed
him.
the decision
dant
the offensе
Since
in that case the doctrine enunciated therein has been
opinions by
repeated again
again in
court.
this
as
The defendant assails the statute
unconstitu
upon
ground that
tional
it is
conflict with section
article
of our fundamental law.
conten
Similar
involving imaginary
the statute
tions
conflict between
this
constitution have been before
section
*7
many
of
this court
times. For an elaborate discussion
meaning
provisions
of the
of this
see
section,
State
(31
Randolph,
A. 470,
P.
17 L. R.
37
v.
103
(103
(167
777); Colby
85
485
Medford,
Or. 424
P.
v.
Or.
487);
207);
joy
(188
Portland,
P.
v.
P.
Love
Nor is this because it from its law invalid operation municipal corporations having population (66 Holmes, 500 or more: P. Ladd Or. Rep. 714, 91 Am. 6 R. L. C. 388, 12 St. C. J. important
There arose the trial of this cause an question admissibility of with relation to the evidence population offered establish the Hill. The Gold alleges indictment on that, 15,1929, June the defendant question by conducting оffended the statute in a dance public ain dance hall in Hill, “a Gold town population people, people,” of less than 500 to wit, 442 county without a frpm license the Jackson court. general judicial
aAs rule, notice taken of population by of towns and cities as declared Oregon City, census. See Stratton v. Or. 905); City
P.
Smith v.
Jefferson,
105 3, 1930 Rehearing June denied Rehearing Petition for On (288 1015) P. rehearing. petition a
The defendant has filed original opinion, Por a of thе case see onr statement chapter Oregon, 381, "whereinwe held General Laws be 1929,to valid. petition,
In our consideration this we are petition, grounds set forth therein. The limited to entirety, in its reads: appellant
“Comes now in above entitled respectfully petitions and a cause, ing, the court for rehear- opinion and that of the court made, rendered following and filed be in March modified 25,1930, particulars following for the reasons, wit: opinion “1. That law considered said constituting declared invalid unconstitutional as legislation, class it because makes an unreasonable having popula- classification between cities or a towns having population tion of 500 or more and those purposes less than 500 for the the court of said statute, and that ruling holding erred that— “ excepts ‘Nоr is this law invalid because it from operation corporations municipal its popula- ” tion of 500 or more.’ original opinion In our we set forth a number leading fully authorities of this state that answer appellant the contention of the statute referred to is unconstitutional in that it is in conflict with sec tion 20, article of our fundamental law. These legislation authorities hold that which affects alike all persons pursuing the same business, under the same legislation prohibited conditions, is not such class as is by this section: constitution. see addition, (85 State Rep. v. 48 P. Muller, 855, 120 Or. 252 Am. St. 106 v. P. Dunn, Hall Ann. Or. 475 88); Cas. v. 53 Or. Wright, State A. S.), 193); L. R. (N. Churchill A. (N. P. 21 L. R. S.)
344 (100
1915A,
Ann.
Cas.
City Albany,
Or.
*10
P. 158);
O’Hara,
v.
261
1094); Simpson
(141
70 Or.
Kozer,
P.
Co. v.
95,
600
Stage
Camas
104 Or.
(209
Dist.
also Tunnel
Oregon
re
25 A. L. R.
See
27).
No.
P.
1).
In tbe first
the legislature
the
and
benefit,
of
for the
necessary
public
legislation
all
whether
police
upon
legality
regulations depends
the
test of reasonable
they
judicial
can ultimately pass
v.
Packing
Co.
Fishermen’s Co-Operative
ness
Union
:
Shoemaker,
194 P.
We
476,
854).
“It is established distinction is not if state of facts can arbitrary, reasonably any and the it, be that sustain existence conceived would that at the time the law was enacted state of facts v. Carbonic Lindsley Natural Gas must be assumed: Co., L. Ann. 61, 369, 1912C, 220 S. 78 Ed. (55 U. Cas. It no 337). makes difference 160, the Rep. 31 Ct. Sup. effect by their may disputed facts opposed strength. and serious It argument opinion in such within the courts to arbitrate competency Q. McGuire, B. S R. R. v. Chicago, 219 U. contrariety: German Ed. 31 328, Sup. Rep. 259); S. 549 L. Ct. (55 Kansas, Ins. Co. v. 414 Alliance 389, (58 233 U. S. 413,
107 Sup. Rep. L. 34 Ct. 1915C,1189, Ed. L. A. 1011, 1022, R. 612); (59 452 L. v. 238 S. Ed. Illinois, 446, Price U. Sup. Rep. 892). 1400, 1405,35 Ct. duty legislature “It and function by mean evils,
discern and correct and evils we do not greater injury public some definite but obstacles to (57 Richmond, 142 welfare: Eubank v. 226 S. 137, U. (N. S.) L. Ed. 156, 192, Ann. Cas. 42 L. R. A. 1914B, Sup. Rep. Sligh Kirkwood, 33 v. Ct. 237U. S. Sup. Rep. And, L. Ed. 835, Ct. may repeat, we ‘It make discriminations if on founded pronounce distinctions that we can not unreasonable purely arbitrary’: Quong Wing and Kirkendall, Sup. Rep. 192), U. S. L. Ed. Ct. cases cited above.”
A statute that has stood the test of time affords example an permitted excellent of classifications under police power liquor is the old statute enacted legislature *11 provided: of this state in 1889, which person permitted spirituous, “No shall be to sell liquors malt quantities or vinous in state in less this gallon having than one without first obtained a license county proper county from the of court for that purpose”: Oregon, p. 1889, § Gen. Laws 1. provided
That statute for four-hundred-dollar per penal license annum, and a bond in sum of provided $1,000. At section thereof it was that the aрply any act should so be construed as not incorporated manner to towns cities this state. respect With to the contention of defendant as set petition rehearing, out in his it has been held authority general eminent that a is law and uniform, operates upоn every not because it individual every person brought state but because within the provided pro- relations for in the statute within its Moore, visions. See Winston v. Pa. St. Atl. Ann. Cas. L. R. A. 1915C, 1915A, legislation subject much of class theOn discussion might further citation But written. unnecessary. business is not the It deemed legislaturе, province to determine but the court, legis necessity, expediency, the wisdom legislation the interpretation of such lation. In 'the validity presumption and, in its is in favor of presumption not been overcome. has this case, instant regulate right legislature dance hаd a to omit The incorporated inhab more than 500 cities halls in municipalities ground were that such itants on the patronize protecting capable their citizens who own public dance. rehearing petition for will be denied. The Argued part March affirmed in June v. RYAN RECKARD 1053)