Opinion.

The decision of the case turns upon the answer to the following question:

[1] 1. Is the section of the ordinance, the enforcement of which is enjoined by the decree under review, non-discriminatory, in contemplation of law—that is, does it observe a natural and fair classification?

The question must be answered in the affirmative. The general proposition is well settled that the legislative authority to adopt an ordinance such as that in question is conferred upon a municipality by charter. powers of regulation, given by such a general welfare clause as that contained in the charter of the city in the instant case, unless it appears from the ordinance itself that it is unreasonable, in that, in its application, it denies the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution. The following authorities, among the many which might be cited on the subject, so hold. 7 McQuillin Mun. Corp., sec. 730, and cases cited; American Tobacco Co. v. Danville, 125 Va. 22-23, 99 S. E. 733, and cases cited; Hopkins v. Richmond, 117 Va. 718, 86 S. E. 139, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1114, and cases cited; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 20 Sup. Ct. 633, 44 L. Ed. 725; Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 33 Sup. Ct. 441, 57 L. Ed. 730.

[2, 3] It is also well settled that such an ordinance does not deny the aforesaid equal protection of the laws, so as to become unreasonable, merely because it applies to a particular business therein named. A reasonable classification is permitted by which a particular business may be singled out and regulated by the ordinance from a general class of businesses, which may be alike in general, the remainder of which being left unregulated, provided the discrimination is made upon some reasonable basis; and the latitude allowed

in the exercise of such discretionary power of classification is very great. Mere difference, or equipoise of opinion on the subject will not justify a court in annulling an ordinance as unreasonable; it must clearly appear from the ordinance that it is unreasonable to justify a court in holding it invalid. 6 R. C. L., sec.

369, pp. 373-4 and cases cited; 7 McQuillin Mun. Corp., sec. 730; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 31 Sup. Ct. 259, 55 L. Ed. 328; Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Blagg, 235 U. S. 571, 35 Sup. Ct. 167, 59 L. Ed. 364; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 33 Sup. Ct. 66, 57 L. Ed. 164; Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U. S. 334, 34 Sup. Ct. 439, 58 L. Ed. 627; Hyman v. Boldrick, 153 Ky. 77, 154 S. W. 369, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1039; Williams v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 79, 30 Sup. Ct. 493, 54 L. Ed. 673, 18 Ann. Cas. 865; Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 34 Sup. Ct. 281, 58 L. Ed. 539.

In Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McGuire, supra (219 U. S. 549, 31 Sup. Ct. 259, 55 L. Ed. 328), the Supreme Court said this: "The principle involved in these decisions is that where the legislative action is arbitrary and has no reasonable relation to a purpose which it is competent for government to effect, the legislature transcends the limit of its power in interfering with liberty of contract; but, where there is reasonable relation to an object within the governmental authority, the exercise of the legislative discretion is not subject to judicial review."

In Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Blagg, supra (235 U. S. 571, 35 Sup. Ct. 167, 59 L. Ed. 364), the Supreme Court said this: "This court has many times affirmed the general proposition that it is not the purpose of the fourteenth amendment in the equal protection clause to take from the States the right and power to classify

Opinion.

the subjects of legislation. It is only when such attempted classification is arbitrary and unreasonable that the court can declare it beyond the legislative authority." (Citing U. S. cases). "That a law may work hardship and inequality is not enough. Many valid laws from the generality of their application necessarily do that, and the legislature must be allowed a wide field of choice on determining the subject matter of its laws, what shall come within them and what shall be excluded."

In Patsone v. Pennsylvania, supra (232 U. S. 138, 34 Sup. Ct. 281, 58 L. Ed. 539), this is said by the Supreme Court: "We start with the general consideration that a State may classify with reference to the evil to be prevented, and that if the class discriminated against is or reasonably might be considered to define those from whom the evil mainly is to be feared, it properly may be picked out. A lack of abstract symmetry does not matter. The question is a practical one dependent upon experience. The demand for symmetry ignores the specific difference that experience is supposed to have shown to mark the class. It is not enough to invalidate the law that others may do the same thing and go unpunished, if, as a matter of fact, it is found that the danger is characteristic of the class named."

In Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, supra (226 U. S. 157, 33 Sup. Ct. 66, 57 L. Ed. 164), this is said by the Supreme Court: "What we have said makes it unnecessary to add much on the second point, if open, that the law is made in favor of regular established dealers. But the short answer is simply to read the law. It extends its force also to those who intend to become such dealers. If it saw fit not to grant the same degree of protection to parties making a transitory incursion into the business, we see no objection."

Opinion.

In Baccus v. Louisiana, supra (232 U. S. 334, 34 Sup. Ct. 439, 58 L. Ed. 627), the Supreme Court held that the State had the power to prohibit the sales by itinerant vendors of any drug, nostrum, ointment or application of any kind intended for the treatment of any disease or injury, while allowing the sale of such articles by other persons.

[4] It is likewise well settled that evidence aliunde is inadmissible to assail the motives which induced the enactment of an ordinance, for the purpose of determining its validity. People v. Gibbs, 186 Mich. 127, 152 N. W. 1053, 1055, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 830; Gardner v. Bluffton, 173 Ind. 454, 89 N. E. 853, 90 N. E. 898, 1912A Ann. Cas. 713; 7 McQuillin, sec. 732. Although such evidence is admissible to sustain the validity of the ordinance, and often has decisive force.

On the subject of the validity of an amendment of a city ordinance attempting to regulate the hours during which all auctioneers were thereby forbidden to conduct public auction sales or to sell goods at public auction, in People v. Gibbs, just cited, this is said: "The contention that this amendment was enacted for the purpose of protecting or benefiting special interests, and was inspired by other motives than guarding the general welfare, is immaterial and cannot be considered here. Courts are not concerned with the motives which actuate members of a legislative body in enacting a law, but in the results of their action. Bad motives might inspire a law which appeared on its face and proved valid and beneficial, while a bad and invalid law might be, and sometimes is, passed with good intent and the best of motives."

[5] In accordance with the above mentioned general principles it has been uniformly held, as stated in 7 McQuillin, sec. 964, that "Ordinances, prescribing

Opinion.

hours for the opening and closing of designated kinds of business, enacted in good faith, which are reasonable, non-discriminatory (observing natural and fair classification), conform to the laws and public policy of the State, and emanate from sufficient power, are valid, constitutional and enforcible."

It is held in State v. Bates, 101 Minn. 301, 112 N. W. 67, that a city ordinance, adopted under the power to license and regulate auctioneers (both of which powers were also held by the appellee city in the instant case), which altogether forbade auctioneers, although duly licensed, "to conduct any auction sale of jewelry or watches" under their license, is valid. In the opinion of the court in that case this is said: The question, then, is whether the ordinance is a reasonable regulation of auction sales, or an arbitrary prohibition of a material part of the business of an auctioneer, and, therefore, unreasonable and void. The regulation and policing of a business include reasonable and necessary limitations and restraints upon the business. Now auction sales of watches and jewelry are often mere schemes for trapping and defrauding the unwary, and a large discretion must be allowed the city council in determining what restraints or prohibitions it is necessary to impose upon the general business of a licensed auctioneer to effectually regulate and police the business. If there be any fair doubt on the question of the reasonableness of the ordinance, it must be resolved in favor of its validity; for the courts will not substitute their discretion for that of the municipal authorities. In re Wilson, 32 Minn. 146, 19 N. W. 723. We are of opinion that the restrictions and prohibitions of the ordinance in question are not unreasonable and hold that its enactment by the city council was authorized by the charter of the city.