LEGAL ANALYSIS 99 



This result was reached by a 6-1 vote of the California Supreme 

 Court. The dissenting judge relied on both the Equal Protection 

 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution 

 and on the corresponding provision of the California constitution. 

 This latter clause is nearly identical to the Washington state pro- 

 vision, California's reading, ". . . nor shall any citizen, or class of 

 citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same 

 terms, shall not be granted to all citizens. "^^^ 



Similarly, the Washington decision in the Ragan case, dealing 

 with jukebox licenses, where similarly there was little basis for limit- 

 ing the number of licensees insofar as the qualifications of applicants 

 was concerned yet a strong reason to limit the absolute number of 

 participants, there were three dissenters to the six-vote majority. The 

 dissenters relied upon equal protection concepts, quoting particularly 

 the Washington constitutional provision, "No law shall be passed 

 granting to any citizen . . . privileges . . . which upon the same terms 

 shall not equally belong to all citizens."^ ^^ 



Each of these cases was appealed to the Unted States Supreme 

 Court. It should be noted, incidentally, that when the litigant claims 

 he has had a federal constitutional right violated and the state court 

 denies that such is the case, he has an absolute right of appeal to 

 the United States Supreme Court. Yet, if the United States Supreme 

 Court thinks the claim is not valid, not even reasonably debatable, 

 that court will deny the appeal out of hand. In each of these cases, 

 the litigant's appeal to the United States Supreme Court was based 

 upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

 Yet, the United States Supreme Court made short work of each case. 

 In each one, the dismissal was in the court's standard language for 

 this type situation, delivered in the Petersen case on June 15, 1959, 

 and in the Ragan case on October 8, 1962: "The appeal is dismissed 

 for want of substantial federal question. "^^^ 



Under a scheme for limitation upon the number of participants, 

 how may the legislature decide who shall fish? This matter, like all 

 other matters in the regulation of economic activity, is one for legis- 

 lative judgment. So long as the method employed is rationally in 

 support of the objective, it will meet the standards of due process. 

 Also, as far as the requirements of equal protection are concerned. 



129. California Constitution, Article 1, §21. 



130. Washington Constitution. Article 1. §12. 



131. Petersen: 360 U. S. 314 (1959); Ragan: 83 Sup. Ct. 22 ( 1962) 



