State v. McMasters
| Decision Date | 10 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | 31798. |
| Parties | STATE v. McMASTERS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Municipal Court of Mankato; Leslie H. Morse, Judge.
A. H McMasters was convicted of violating the barbers' code and he appeals.
Conviction affirmed.
The due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions are not contravened by fixing minimum prices for services of barbers under statute, since barbers' services have a sufficient relation to public health to warrant regulation. Mason's Minn.St.Supp.1938, §§ 5705-31 to 5705-38; U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14.
Syllabus by the Court .
1. The governor, in formulating a barbers' code, under c. 235 L.1937, fixing the minimum price for barbers' services, must be assumed to have taken all the steps required by the act, hence the minimum price for a hair cut cannot be held arbitrarily or unfairly fixed, the fairness of such price not having been questioned in any district court, as permitted by the act.
2. The ascertainment of the facts and the fixing of a minimum price for barbers' services based thereon imposed upon the governor, or upon a board or commission, is not an unlawful delegation of legislative powers.
3. The due process clause of the state and federal constitution is not contravened by fixing minimum prices for the services of barbers under L.1937, c. 235, barbers' services having a sufficient relation to public health warranting regulations.
L. P. Johnson, of Mankato, and Edward P. Kelly, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
William S. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Edgar S. Young, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. A. Johnson, Co. Atty., of Mankato, for the State.
Oppenheimer, Dickson, Hodgson, Brown & Donnelly, of St. Paul, for Associated Master Barbers of Minnesota, amicus curiae.
George L. Siegel, of St. Paul, for Minnesota State Journeymen's Barber Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Defendant charged a customer forty cents for a hair cut. He was arrested and convicted in the municipal court of Mankato for a violation of the so-called barbers' code, fixing the minimum prices for the different services rendered by a barber, such price for a hair cut being 50 cents. The sentence pronounced was a fine of $25 or confinement in the county jail for 30 days. Defendant appeals.
The violated code has for its sole authority L. 1937, c. 235, (3 Mason Minn.St.1938 Supp. §§ 5705-31 to 5705-38), entitled: ‘ An act to prevent unfair competition and unfair trade practice in service trades under certain conditions.’ It provides: (§ 1) that upon application to the governor for relief from unfair competition and unfair trade practices resulting in unemployment, economic distress and disorganization of service trades engaged in rendering personal services upon persons, licensed and regulated by the state, the governor is authorized to ‘ investigate, ascertain, declare and prescribe reasonable rules, regulations, or standards, to prevent such unfair competition, * * * to establish standards of maximum hours of labor, minimum rates of pay and working conditions,’ etc. The application to the governor (§ 2) must be made by and (3) that the same ‘ are necessary for the stabilization of the business of such service trades, the Governor may, as a condition of approval of any such rules, regulations or standards, impose such conditions for the protection of consumers, competitors, employes and others, and in the furtherance of the public interest, and may provide such exceptions to and exemptions from the provisions of such rules, regulations or standards as in his discretion is deemed necessary to effectuate the policy declared in this act.’ Section 3 makes such rules so adopted by the governor binding upon every one in such trade or business.
Section 4 provides for assessments against and collection from all persons, firms and corporations in the trade, on a fair basis, sufficient money for expenses incurred in administering the code so adopted.
Section 5 provides that all orders of the governor ‘ prescribing, approving, disapproving, modifying, amending or terminating rules, regulations or standards shall be subject to review by any District Court of the state.’ But no injunction suspending any rule, regulation or standard shall be granted except upon filing of a good and sufficient bond running to the state and enforceable by the governor on behalf of all parties in interest, conditioned for the payment of all damages, loss of profits and of wages which may be sustained by any employer or employe, in the event that the injunction is not made permanent.
Section 6 invests the District Courts of the state with jurisdiction to restrain violation of the rules, etc. Section 7 makes violations misdemeanors, as well as refusals to comply with ‘ any notice duly issued by the Governor.’ Section 8: ‘ The Governor may designate or appoint such agents, deputies, commissioners, or any department of the state, to administer and enforce every order, rule, regulation or standard prescribed or approved by him.’
In several states similar laws, fixing maximum hours and minimum prices for services in trades, recite that the unprecedented depression necessitated emergency legislation to remain in effect only for a designated time. No such excuse is given for the enactment of this law. Evidently this sort of legislation is patterned after acts of Congress authorizing the President to formulate codes for various purposes. The code here attacked, purporting to have been formulated and promulgated by the governor in virtue of said c. 235, is very comprehensive and exacting as to maximum hours of labor and minimum prices and wages. It even converts the Minnesota State Board of Barber Examiners into a Trade Commission to enforce the orders of the governor. However, we are not in this appeal concerned with any provisions of the code except that which fixes the minimum rate for a hair cut. The offense alleged is that, on January 14, 1938, at his barber shop, in the territory specified in the code, defendant cut the hair of one W. H. Colby for the price of forty cents, said price being less than the minimum price established by § 3, Art. 9, of the code mentioned.
Three propositions are urged for a reversal. The first is that the code formulated by the governor is arbitrary in many respects. The law authorizing the governor to make the code prescribes certain steps to be taken, hearings to be had, and permits a review of his action by the district courts. It is to be assumed that the provisions of the law in these respects have been complied with. There is no suggestion in the record that the code is arbitrary as to the territory embraced, nor that the district court has been asked to review the minimum price fixed. No evidence was offered in this case that fifty cents was too high a minimum price for a hair cut. So the first proposition must be decided against defendant. State v. Fasekas, 223 Wis. 356, 269 N.W. 700.
The second ground of attack is that L.1937, c. 235, attempts to confer upon the governor and administrative agencies created by him legislative powers which lawfully cannot be delegated. The fact that the authority is given to a person rather than to a board or commission cannot affect the lawfulness of the power. It is enough to refer to Williams v. Evans, 139 Minn. 32, 165 N.W. 495,166 N.W. 504, L.R.A.1918F, 542 and Miller Telephone Co. v. Minimum Wage Commission, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial