74 SALMON GEAR LIMITATION 



"We are impressed with Mr. Ragan's arguments: that since many other 

 tavern operators are permitted to own their own juke boxes, he should be 

 accorded a Hke opportunity; that such individual ownership is the best 

 way to eliminate any racketeering or coercive methods between the com- 

 peting operators; and that, if the limitation of the number of juke boxes 

 is the goal, the way to achieve it is to limit the number of juke boxes 

 rather than the number of licensees; . . . However, we are not the duly 

 elected members of the Seattle City Council, charged with the responsibility 

 of enacting the legislation whereby the city limits and controls the opera- 

 tion of juke boxes within its limits. Whether the terms of an ordinance 

 are wise or unwise is a question addressed solely to the city council . . . 

 We cannot say that the legislation enacted by the city, regulating the 

 operation of juke boxes is unreasonable or oppressive, or that it does not 

 have a substantial relation to the accomplishment of purposes fairly within 

 the scope of the police power. "^^ 



The court then quoted with approval the language of the United 



States Supreme Court from another case:^^ 



"It is enough for present purposes that the ordinance, in the light of 

 facts admitted or generally assumed, does not preclude the possibility of a 

 rational basis for the legislative judgment and that we have not such 

 knowledge of local conditions as would enable us to say that it is clearly 

 wrong . . ."57 



The Washington State Supreme Court has been fairly tolerant 

 in deciding what purposes of legislation are to be considered legiti- 

 mate, so far as application of equal protection standards is con- 

 cerned. The usual statement is that so long as the purpose of the 

 legislation is the promotion of the health, safety, morals or welfare 

 of the people of the state, any legislative classification to further 

 those ends is valid. The obvious purposes which fall within this 

 broad definition would certainly include regulations pertaining to 

 the qualifications of persons who serve the public for which a certain 

 degree of skill is required. For example, legislation requiring certain 

 standards for doctors or lawyers would certainly be sustainable. Or, 

 legislation classifying persons as to age in the issuance of drivers' 

 licenses is clearly aimed at the legitimate purpose of promoting the 

 safety of those using the highways. 



More important to the problem at hand are cases illustrating 

 that the Washington court recognizes less obvious illustrations of 

 valid purposes than the previous examples given. For example, it 



55. Id. at 786; 364 P. 2d at 920. 



56. Ohio ex rel. Clarke v. Deckebach, 274 U. S. 392 (1927), 



57. 58 Wn. 2d at 786, 787; 364 P. 2d at 920. 



