Savage v. Martin

• Decision Date: 06 June 1939
• Citation: 161 Or. 660,91 P.2d 273
• Parties: SAVAGE ET AL. <I>v.</I> MARTIN ET AL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

161 Or. 660

91 P.2d 273

SAVAGE ET AL.v.

MARTIN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued December 8, 1938.

Affirmed June 6, 1939.

Constitutional law — Milk control law

1. The supreme court was not concerned with the policy, wisdom, or expediency of the Milk Control Act when its validity was challenged, but was concerned only with the power of the legislature to enact it.

Food — Police power

2. The milk industry is subject to regulation under the police power of the state.

Constitutional law — Price fixing

3. The state may, by proper and reasonable law, delegate to a board the power to fix minimum prices at which milk may be sold.

Constitutional law — Police power

4. The power to regulate any industry may be exercised only to correct some evil or abuse found by the legislature to exist.

Statutes — Recitals in preamble

5. The recitals in preamble to Milk Control Act, with respect to the evils which act was intended to correct, were to be given verity by the court in absence of countervailing evidence.

Constitutional law — Police power

6. The state under the police power may adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare and may enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose, and when validity of such legislation is challenged, the only question for the court is whether the regulation has any real or substantial relation to the object sought to be accomplished, or whether it is so unreasonable as to amount to a mere arbitrary interference with the right to contract.

Constitutional law — Price control

7. Price control is unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt.

Food — Milk control law

8. The argument for a uniform price arrived at through establishment of quotas and the pooling of returns, in support of amendment to Milk Control Act, if conceivably true, furnished rational basis for the regulation.

Food — Price control

9. Price control legislation enacted primarily to promote the public interest by relieving those in milk industry from hazards

of an uncontrolled market is not subject to attack by beneficiaries unless they can show that such uniformity of price is not legitimate means of furthering the desired object of stabilizing the market, or that it is purely arbitrary or discriminatory.

Constitutional law — Reasonable price

10. The state or the Milk Control Board acting in its behalf may not compel a producer of milk no matter in what class he falls to accept for his product a price that is unreasonable or confiscatory.

Constitutional law — Police power

11. Where regulation in exercise of police power is within scope of authority legally delegated, presumption of existence of facts justifying its specific exercise attaches, particularly where the regulation is adopted after notice and public hearing.

Appeal and error — Milk control law

12. Facts found by Milk Control Board in support of regulation fixing uniform pool price for milk were regarded as established by the supreme court in absence of evidence in record to overcome presumption that facts existed justifying exercise of power by board.

Constitutional law — Eminent domain

13. The statute designed to stabilize the milk industry and prevent recurrences of surpluses by authorizing a board to establish quotas and to provide for pooling of returns and for payment of a uniform pool price does not take property without due process or without just compensation, as applied to producer-distributors of Grade A raw milk who do not receive full minimum price for entire quota because of inability of producers of Grade B raw milk and Grade A pasteurized milk to sell their entire quotas.

Constitutional law — Wisdom of legislation

14. The supreme court in passing on the constitutionality of a statute cannot substitute its judgment for that of the legislature with respect to matters of opinion and of individual preference.

Constitutional law — Statutes — Milk control

15. The statute designed to stabilize the milk industry and prevent recurrences of surpluses by authorizing a board to establish quotas and to provide for pooling of returns and for payment of a uniform pool price does not, under the evidence, deny equal protection of the laws to producer-distributors of Grade A raw milk, notwithstanding that such milk is allegedly superior to and costs more to produce than Grade B pasteurized milk and that Grade A producer-distributors allegedly do not produce more milk than they are able to sell.

Constitutional law — Equal protection

16. The constitutional guaranty of equal protection of the laws requires that there be a reasonable basis for classification prescribed by a statute.

Constitutional law — Equal protection

17. Legislation, which affects alike all persons pursuing the same business under the same conditions, is not "class legislation" prohibited by constitutional guaranty of equal protection of the laws.

Constitutional law — Equal protection

18. The guaranty of "equal protection of the laws" admits of the exercise of a wide scope of discretion and avoids only what is done without any reasonable basis and is therefore purely arbitrary.

Constitutional law — Equal protection

19. A classification is not arbitrary in the sense prohibited by constitutional guaranty of "equal protection of the laws" if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, and the existence of that state of facts at time law was enacted must be assumed.

Constitutional law — Equal protection

20. A classification having some reasonable basis does not deny "equal protection of the laws" because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.

Constitutional law — Wisdom of legislation

21. The supreme court in passing on the constitutionality of a statute will yield to the judgment of the legislature on what are at best debatable questions.

Constitutional law — Delegation of power

22. The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things on which the law makes or intends to make its own action depend.

Constitutional law — Delegation of power

23. A statute need only establish a sufficient basic standard and a definite and certain policy and rule of action for guidance of an agency created to administer the statute in order to avoid invalidity as a delegation of legislative power.

Food — Milk control law

24. The provision in the Milk Control Act giving the Milk Control Board authority to provide for the "pooling" and "averaging" of returns which are words of common use, and payment of a uniform pool price to producers, means that each producer shall

receive the same price for the same class of milk as fixed by the board.

Food — Milk — Surplus

25. The provision in the Milk Control Act giving board power to control surplus production by establishment of "basic averages" is not subject to criticism because term "basic averages" is not defined, in view of fact that term has a well-known meaning in the milk industry, being a device developed in cooperative effort to meet the evil of uncontrolled surplus.

Constitutional law — Milk — Quotas

26. The provision in Milk Control Act authorizing board to determine quotas based on producer's fair share of market as determined by previous experience was not required, in order to avoid invalidity as delegation of legislative power, to describe in detail length of experience to be considered, or whether it should be experience of production or sales, but such matters could be left to discretion of board.

Constitutional law — Delegation of power

27. The supreme court will not determine the validity of an alleged delegation of legislative power when agency on which power has been conferred has not attempted to exercise.

Constitutional law — Statutes — Milk

28. The statute designed to stabilize the milk industry and prevent recurrences of surpluses by authorizing a Milk Control Board to establish quota areas, to prescribe quotas for individual producers, and to provide for pooling of returns and for payment of a uniform pool price, is not a "delegation of legislative power" within constitutional prohibition.

Constitutional law — Milk control law

29. Alleged invalidity of provision in Milk Control Act authorizing board to exempt from license requirements milk dealers selling milk in any quantities in markets of 15,000 population or less would not be considered where producers asserting invalidity expressly averred that they were duly licensed and had paid poundage fees required by the act, and where they did not make specific attack on the provision nor any of the licensing provisions of the act.

Constitutional law — Milk control law

30. Alleged increase in population of sales area and consequent increased demand for milk and corresponding alleged inadequacy of quotas assigned to producer-distributors did not furnish basis for attacking constitutionality of Milk Control Act, but constituted at most an accusation of improper administration by Milk Control Board and did not warrant resort to suit before application had been made to the board for modification of its order.

Food — Milk control

31. Recalculation by Milk Control Board of assessments for purpose of uniformity but not for purpose of fixing legal liability of producer-distributors and without arbitrary, oppressive or illegal effect did not affect constitutionality of Milk Control Act.

RAND, C.J., and BEAN and ROSSMAN, JJ., dissenting.

                  Constitutionality of regulations as to milk, note, 110 A.L.R
                644. See, also, 11 R.C.L. 1109 (4 Perm. Supp., 3052)
                  26 C.J. Food, § 4
                

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.

L.G. LEWELLING, Judge.

Suit by W.E. Savage and another against Charles H. Martin, governor of the state of Oregon, and others, to enjoin ...