Clark v. Dwyer
| Decision Date | 30 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35280,35280 |
| Citation | 56 Wn.2d 425,353 P.2d 941 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Cecll C. CLARK and Catherine Clark, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Joe DWYER, as Director of the Department of Agriculture of the State of Washington, Appellant. |
John J. O'Connell Atty. Gen., Ernest M. Furnia, Olympia, for appellant.
Halverson, Applegate & McDonald, Walter E. Weeks, Jr., Yakima, for respondents.
Charles W. Cone, Wenatchee, amicus curiae.
The plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, challenge the constitutionality of chapter 230, Laws of 1959, which amends chapter 222, Laws of 1939 (RCW 15.16.080). A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and, the defendant refusing to plead further, judgment was entered enjoining the defendant, director of the department of agriculture of the state of Washington, from enforcing the provisions of this amendment.
Laws of 1939, chapter 222, § 1, p. 931, provide:
'It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, trust, association, co-operative or other business unit or device to pack, ship or sell apples unless such apples are sold, packed and graded in compliance with the general rules and regulations made, adopted and promulgated from time to time by the Director of Agriculture pursuant to section 4 of chapter 27 of the Laws of 1931 * * * Within sixty (60) days after the taking effect of this act general rules and regulations shall be adopted and promulgated defining and establishing the following grades:
'(a) Extra fancy
'(b) Fancy
'(c) C grade
'(d) Culls
'(e) Infested culls.'
Section 4, chapter 27, p. 86. Laws of 1931, provided for the promulgation of grading rules only after official public hearings pursuant to such reasonable rules prescribed by the director as should insure a full, fair and impartial opportunity for all interested districts to be heard; and further provided that the grading rules should be based upon the necessities and properties as shown in the hearing, taking into consideration the commercial tonnage of said products in each district affected by said rules. This provision is now contained in RCW 15.16.010.
Chapter 230, p. 1070, Laws of 1959, reads as follows:
'The director shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations establishing the following grades of appeals: For green and yellow varieties: (1) Extra fancy, (2) fancy, (3) C grade, (4) culls, and (5) infected culls. For red and partial red varieties: (1) Extra fancy, (2) fancy, (3) culls, and (4) infected culls.
'No person shall pack, sell, or ship apples unless the same comply with the rules, regulations and grades adopted pursuant to RCW 15.16.010.
'Sec. 2. There is added to chapter 15.16 RCW a new section to read as follows:
'The director when establishing standards of color requirements for red varieties and
partial red varieties of apples shall establish color standards for such varieties
which are not less than the following
"1. Arkansas Black ........ Fifteen percent
"2. Spitzenburg (Esopus) .. Fifteen percent
"3. Winesap ............... Twenty percent
"4. King David ............ Fifteen percent
"5. Delicious ............. Twenty percent
"6. Staymen Winesap ....... Ten percent
"7. Vanderpool ............ Ten percent
"8. Black Twig ............ Ten percent
"9. Jonathon .............. Ten percent
"10. McIntosh .............. Ten percent
"11. Rome .................. Ten percent
"12. Red Sport varieties ... Twenty percent
'Whenever red sport varieties are marked as such, they shall meet the color requirements of red sport varieties.'
By § 1 of this act the legislature eliminated the third, or C grade, as to red and partial red varieties of apples, while retaining it as it applies to green and yellow varieties of apples. Section, 2, according to the allegations of the complaint in this action, sets minimum color requirements to which the director of agriculture may lower existing color requirements of the second, or 'fancy,' grade of red and partial red varieties of apples. Such minimum color requirements, if adopted, would lower the existing color requirements for 'fancy' grade of red and partial red varieties by five per cent.
According to the allegations of the complaint, the apples which have heretofore been graded as 'C grade' are as edible and healthful as those which have been graded 'fancy' or 'extra fancy.'
Under the new grading system, two thirds of the apples formerly designated as C grade will now be classified as culls, while one third will fall into the 'fancy' category. Those which are graded 'culls' can, under the provisions of RCW 15.16.160, be sold or shipped only in one-bushel baskets, ring-faced and lidded, with the name 'culls' appearing on the top and bottom of each container and any labels thereon in clear, legible letters at least two and one-half inches high.
It was alleged that the state of Washington produces and ships more apples than any other state in the United States; that according to the figures released by the state department of agriculture, there were produced in the state in the year 1957, approximately 33,000,000 bushels of apples of a value of about $73,000,000. In the year 1958, there were produced approximately 30,000,000 bushels of a value of about $75,000,000, and a similar production is expected in 1959. Of the apples produced in the state in these years, approximately ninety-five per cent were of the red and partial red varieties, and five per cent were of the green and yellow varieties.
During the 1957-58 crop year there were approximately 4,250,000 boxes of C grade apples of the red and partial red varieties shipped in interstate commerce, and for the crop year 1958-59, there were approximately 2,500,000 boxes of C grade apples of the red and partial red varieties available for shipment. Prior to the effective date of the 1959 amendment, all but 264,708 boxes of these had been shipped in interstate commerce. The price of C grade red and partial red varieties during the crop years of 1957-58 and 1958-59, was generally $2 a box or more.
Weather conditions and low elevations are largely responsible for the production of apples of C grade of red and partial red varieties; this grade is not primarily a result of inferior farming nor growing practices. C grade apples have less color than have extra fancy and fancy grade apples. (The regulations attached to the complaint reveal that the requirements as to shape and freedom from damage are less strict in the case of C grade apples.) Generally, apples mature earlier in the season at lower elevations and in the more southerly parts of the state and have less opportunity to color; and in these areas substantially larger quantities of C grade apples of red and partial red varieties are produced than in other areas.
It is alleged that the manner heretofore allowed for shipping and marketing C grade apples of red and partial red varieties, is in no way detrimental to the public safety, health, morals, or convenience, nor does it constitute a fraud upon the public. It is further alleged that the classifying of C grade apples as culls would impair their value by prohibiting their shipment in standard boxes and requiring their shipment in bushel baskets.
The validity of the amendment was challenged on several grounds, which were consolidated for the purposes of argument in this court and set forth as follows:
The question before the court is: Assuming the allegations of fact contained in the complaint to be true, do they show the 1959 amendment to be an invalid exercise of the police power?
It must be borne in mind that the state constitution is not a grant, but a restriction on the law-making power, and the power of the legislature to enact all reasonable laws is unrestrained except where, either expressly or by fair inference, it is prohibited by the state and Federal constitutions. Where the validity of a statute is assailed, there is a presumption of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment, unless its repugnancy to the constitution clearly appears or is made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt. Port of Tacoma v. Parosa, 52 Wash.2d 181, 324 P.2d 438; In re Bartz, 47 Wash.2d 161, 287 P.2d 119; Union High School Dist. No. 1 v. Taxpayers of Union High School Dist. No. 1, 26 Wash.2d 1, 172 P.2d 591. Where possible, it will be presumed that the legislature has affirmatively determined any special facts requisite to the validity of the enactment, even though no legislative finding of fact appears in the statute. State ex. rel. Collier v. Yelle, 9 Wash.2d 317, 333, 115 P.2d 373.
As this court said in Gruen v. State Tax Commission, 35 Wash.2d 1, at page 7, 211 P.2d 651, at page 656:
While the plaintiffs do not question the validity of chapter 222, Laws of 1939, providing for the promulgation of rules establishing grades of apples, they urge that the 1959 amendment, eliminating one of these grades in the case of red and partial red varieties, is not a proper exercise of the police power because it was not enacted to protect the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...v. State, 92 Wash.2d 717, 720, 600 P.2d 1268 (1979); State v. Primeau, 70 Wash.2d 109, 111, 422 P.2d 302 (1966); Clark v. Dwyer, 56 Wash.2d 425, 353 P.2d 941 (1960). This court will sustain statutes whenever it can conceive any set of facts which support the statute's constitutionality, see......
-
Brewer v. Copeland
...State v. Persinger, supra; Overlake Homes, Inc. v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 57 Wash.2d 881, 360 P.2d 570 (1961); Clark v. Dwyer, 56 Wash.2d 425, 353 P.2d 941 (1960), Cert. denied 364 U.S. 932, 81 S.Ct. 379, 5 L.Ed.2d 365 (1961). The record fails to show any material change by 1971 in the f......
-
Amunrud v. Board of Appeals
...Wash.2d at 205, 11 P.3d 762); Johnson, 96 Wash.2d at 258, 634 P.2d 877; Aetna, 83 Wash.2d at 528-29, 520 P.2d 162; Clark v. Dwyer, 56 Wash.2d 425, 431, 353 P.2d 941 (1960). See also Parrish v. W. Coast Hotel Co., 185 Wash. 581, 597, 55 P.2d 1083 (1936) (statute must be unconstitutional "bey......
-
Wash. State Farm Bureau Feder. v. Gregoire
...it enacted the 2006 amendment. When the legislature enacts laws, it speaks as the chosen representative of the people. Clark v. Dwyer, 56 Wash.2d 425, 353 P.2d 941 (1960). It is neither our prerogative nor our function to substitute our judgment for the duly elected legislature's determinat......