DocketNumber: 6 Div. 77.
Citation Numbers: 142 So. 838, 225 Ala. 178
Judges: THOMAS, J.
Filed Date: 6/9/1932
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/14/2017
The petition was statutory quo warranto directed against the members of the board of cosmetological examiners of Jefferson county, under section 9932 of the Code. State ex rel. Knox v. Dillard,
The decision upholding the Barber's Act (Gen. Acts 1931, p. 615) in Wages v. State (Ala. Sup.)
When the entire act is considered under the rules that obtain (May v. Head,
It is next insisted that the act is a revenue bill and was not passed by the Legislature before "the last five days of the session," in disregard of section 70 of the Constitution.
The act in question was not within the class of "Bills for Raising Revenue" within the purview of section 70 of the Constitution. Such is the analogy to be found in the declarations *Page 180
of this court that: "A statute the purpose of which is to provide for the dispensing of liquors by municipalities, is not a bill for raising revenue. Dunbar v. Frazer,
It is next insisted that the act was unconstitutional and void in that it conflicts with and violates the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That is, it is the insistence that section 5 of the act clothes the board with absolute, arbitrary, and unlimited power to prescribe qualifications for admission to practice cosmetology, and thus offends the provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The right to follow lawful employment of any ordinary and harmless calling, and that of entering the professions duly and reasonably regulated under the police power, are of constitutional guaranty that may not be abridged, and are property rights that may not be arbitrarily denied without due process of law, and as to which the equal protection of the law may not be denied or withheld. Replogle v. City of Little Rock,
And by Mr. Tiedman: "No man's liberty is safe if the legislature can deny him the right to engage in a harmless calling." 1 Tiedman, State Federal Control of Persons and Property, p. 236.
Mr. Justice Bradley in Butchers' Union Slaughter-House L. S. L. Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock L. S. H. Co.,
And in Replogle v. City of Little Rock,
We are thus remitted to the question long declared, in this and other jurisdictions, that an act or ordinance must prescribe a uniform rule of action under delegated power, and not reserve the right to arbitrarily grant or withhold a privilege — a question presented in the line of our decisions from City Council of Montgomery v. West,
It may be well to observe that the discretions given such boards, as those set up or provided by the act as to the granting and revocation of licenses, must conform to that line of well-recognized state and federal authorities. City Council of Montgomery v. West, supra; Cooke, Clerk, v. Loper,
Constitutional inhibitions as to state statutes unduly limiting and regulating private businesses are the subject of frequent discussions in the courts. Fox v. State of Washington,
The power by legislative agents to make rules is an administrative function or discretion, and can be justified only in the right to make reasonable rules to limit and regulate the future conduct of those observing or coming in conflict therewith (Whaley v. State,
It may be further said that the right of the state to regulate certain occupations which may become unsafe or dangerous, if unrestrained and unregulated, with the view of protecting the public health and welfare, has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in authorities cited and in a discussion of People of State of New York ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, Warden,
With such understanding of the federal authorities, and those of this jurisdiction, under the definition of "practice" contained in section 2 of the instant act, the qualifications for admission to practice cosmetology contained in section 5, the examination provided for students in section 8, and the authority in section 10 to make reasonable rules and regulations for the operation of such schools, we are not impressed that the board of examiners provided by the act are vested with the arbitrary power to grant a license to one to practice that vocation and to refuse or revoke the license of another similarly situated. That is to say, the act does not deny the equal protection of the law and does not abridge the privilege or immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; nor is it offensive to any other provisions of organic law, state or federal, that have been brought to our attention.
The judgment of the circuit court sustaining respondent's demurrer to the relator's petition and dismissing the same is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins , 6 S. Ct. 1064 ( 1886 )
Fox v. Washington , 35 S. Ct. 383 ( 1915 )
Dobbins v. Los Angeles , 25 S. Ct. 18 ( 1904 )
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1) , 29 S. Ct. 220 ( 1909 )
Adams v. Tanner , 37 S. Ct. 662 ( 1917 )
Collins v. Texas , 32 S. Ct. 286 ( 1912 )
Dent v. West Virginia , 9 S. Ct. 231 ( 1889 )
Bacon v. Walker , 27 S. Ct. 289 ( 1907 )
Butchers' Union Slaughter-House & Live-Stock Landing Co. v. ... , 4 S. Ct. 652 ( 1884 )
Allgeyer v. Louisiana , 17 S. Ct. 427 ( 1897 )
Omaechevarria v. Idaho , 38 S. Ct. 323 ( 1918 )
New York Life Insurance v. Dodge , 38 S. Ct. 337 ( 1918 )
Selective Draft Law Cases , 38 S. Ct. 159 ( 1918 )
Smith v. Texas , 34 S. Ct. 681 ( 1914 )
Arizona Employers' Liability Cases , 39 S. Ct. 553 ( 1919 )
Booth v. Illinois , 22 S. Ct. 425 ( 1902 )
Reetz v. Michigan , 23 S. Ct. 390 ( 1903 )
Hill v. Wallace , 42 S. Ct. 453 ( 1922 )
New York Ex Rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr , 26 S. Ct. 144 ( 1905 )