LEGAL ANALYSIS 85 



test in the Washington court of adequacy under due process, for 

 example, can probably be stated in much the same terms as for the 

 federal court: If there be a legitimate purpose to be accomplished 

 by the legislature and a rational means selected to effect the purpose, 

 the regulation is valid. In the definition of "legitimate" as used here, 

 about the most that can be stated is that the act must be intended 

 to further the general welfare, or as sometimes stated, be for the 

 public good. As will be developed, the earlier cases, some of them 

 particularly, seemed to insist that the permissible categories included 

 only those measures which were for the public health, safety, or 

 morals. A recent case will illustrate the inadequacy of that specifi- 

 cation of legitimate purposes. The case is Clark v. Dwyer,^^ the 1960 

 decision upholding the apple grading system described earlier in this 

 report under the discussion of equal protection. It had been strenu- 

 ously argued in the briefs submitted in that case that the apples 

 relegated to the "cull" category were healthful and free of blemishes, 

 and hence to change the grading system to call them "culls" did not 

 promote health or safety, and thus deprived the growers of their 

 property without due process of law. The court rejected this argument, 

 saying: 



"The wisdom of this change 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 the general welfare, is one which could 

 be properly served in the exercise of the police power. ''^^ 



This was but a reaffirmation of the same view expressed and 

 applied in a much earlier case. State v. Pitney, ^^ decided in 1914. 

 In that case the court upheld a prohibitory tax on trading stamps 

 used as "trade stimulants." Against an argument that there was 

 nothing immoral, unhealthy or unsafe about the use of trading stamps, 



the court said: 



-The early decisions define this power [of the legislature] as extending 

 to those regulations promulgated by or under the authority of the legisla- 

 ture which had for their object the promotion of the public health, the 

 public morals, or the public safety. Without reviewing the evolution of the 

 law upon this subject, as evidenced by the decisions of courts of last resort, 

 it may be said that, whatever may be the limits by which the earlier deci- 

 sions circumscribed the power, it has, in more recent decisions, been 



89. 56 Wn. 2d 425, 353 P. 2d 941 ( 1960), cert. den. 364 U. S. 932 ( 1961 ). discussed 

 supra, nn. 52-53 and 59-60. 



90. Id. at 433: 353 P. 2d at 946. 



91. 79 Wash. 608, 140 Pac. 918 ( 1914), discussed 5///?/v/. n. 81. 



