LEGAL ANALYSIS 75 



recognized in the case previously mentioned^^ dealing with the Anti- 

 Discrimination Act as applied to the sale of housing that it was a 

 legitimate public purpose for the legislation to try to prevent dis- 

 criminations on account of race in the sale of houses, since such dis- 

 criminations contributed to the existence of slum areas in large cities 

 and to difficulties with juvenile problems and crime control. Or, as 

 in the case concerning apple grading just discussed, ^^ the court 

 recognized it as a legitimate legislative purpose that the welfare of 

 the apple industry be promoted. The court specifically noted that 

 Washington is the nation's largest producer and shipper of apples 

 and that the value of the Washington crop was about $75 million 

 annually. The court also pointed out that legislation need not be 

 confined strictly to the preservation of public health, safety, and 

 morals; it has a much broader base, carrying validity if it simply 

 preserves or promotes the public welfare. Dealing with this particular 

 segment of the state's economy, shown to be highly significant to 

 Washington, the court said: 



"The wisdom of this change [in the grading scheme] is a matter within 

 the province of the legislature, not of this court, and its purpose, which we 

 assume to be for the protection of the reputation of Washington apples 

 and the betterment of the industry, and as a result of the general welfare, 

 is one which could properly be served in the exercise of the police 

 power."^^ 



In a 1955 case^^ in which certain off-shore fishing licensing fees 

 were challenged, the court, in holding that the legislation was for 

 a valid legislative purpose, first quoted from an earlier case dealing 

 with a lower standard of care legislatively prescribed for the opera- 

 tion of automobiles (in order to avoid collusion between hosts and 

 their guest-passengers): ". . . the state . . . may prescribe laws tending 

 to promote the health, peace, morals, education, good order, and 

 welfare of the people . . ."^^ Then, as to the regulation of the fishing 

 industry accomplished by the legislation under review, the court 

 said: "We conclude that regulation and conservation of our salmon 

 industry . . . promote the 'good order and welfare of the people' 



58. O'Meara v. Board. 58 Wn. 2d 793, 365 P. 2d 1 (1961). discussed supra, n. 50. 



59. Clark v. Dwyer. 56 Wn. 2d 425, 353 P. 2d 941 (1960), cert. den. 364 U. S. 932 

 (1961), discussed supra, n. 52. 



60. Id. at 433; 353 P. 2d at 946. 



61. Frach V. SchoeUler, 46 Wn. 2d 281, 280 P. 2d 1038 (1955). 



62. Id. at 285, 286; 280 P. 2d at 1041, quoting from Shea v. Olson, 185 Wash. 143. 

 153;53P. 2d615, 619 (1936). 



