LEGAL ANALYSIS 71 



it could sacrifice a commercial menhaden fishery. It bears repeating 

 that these are legislative judgments; the constitutional clauses do 

 not require that one commercial interest, harmless and beneficial 

 though it be and ancient and honorable though it be, must persist 

 if, in the legislature's rational determination to promote by rational 

 means some other legitimate value in society, the legislature decided 

 also that the commercial interest must give way. 



C. Development of Pertinent Constitutional Clauses in the Deci- 

 sions of the Washington Court 



1 . Equal Protection 



Generally speaking, the Washington State Supreme Court's appli- 

 cation of the concept of equal protection has been similar to that of 

 the United States Supreme Court. Of course the state court has the 

 occasion to apply not only the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- 

 teenth Amendment of the federal constitution, but also the corre- 

 sponding clause of the state constitution. The United States Supreme 

 Court, on the other hand, does not purport to decide the applications 

 of any state constitutional provision. 



The Washington court has, however, frequendy stated that it 

 considers the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution and 

 the corresponding clause of the state constitution to impose the 

 same limitation upon the state. The Washington state constitutional 

 provision is differently worded. It reads: 



"No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or 

 corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon 

 the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.'"*^ 



Of the two provisions the Washington court has said: 



". . . this court regards the equal privileges and immunities provision 

 of Art. I, § 12, of the state constitution and the equal protection clause of 

 the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States as 

 substantially identical. "^^ 



As a practical matter, of course, it must be borne in mind that 

 a challenge to a state regulatory scheme may well be first made in 

 a Washington court, where both the federal and state constitutional 

 provisions would be brought into question. Should this be the case, 

 the Washington court will, of course, apply its own interpretation 

 of what those clauses mean, and should a decision be made that 

 both the federal and state constitutional provisions have been violated. 



48. Washington State Constitution, Art. 1, § 12. 



49. Texas Company v. Cohn, 8 Wn. 2d 360, 374, 112 P. 2d 522 (1941), 



