Graham v. Kingwell

WASTE, C. J.

Alleging that the California Apiary Inspection Act (Stats. 1927, p. 1724, as amended, now part of Agricultural Code, Stats. 1933, chap. 25), is unconstitutional, plaintiff brought this action to enjoin the defendants, in their official capacities, from enforcing its provisions. The defendants demurred both generally and specially. Plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment sustaining the general demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing the action.

On this appeal plaintiff urges that the act in question does not constitute a proper exercise of the police power and that it contravenes the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution. The point is not well taken. In the exercise of its police power the state may prescribe regulations tending to promote the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the people. It may also legislate so as to increase the industries of the state, develop its resources and promote its welfare and prosperity.

(People

v.

Associated Oil Co.,

211 Cal. 93, 99 [249 Pac. 717].) In its inception “the police power was closely concerned with the preservation of the public peace, safety, morals, and health, without specific regard for ‘the general welfare’. The increasing complexity of our civilization and institutions later gave rise to cases wherein the promotion of the public welfare was held by the courts to be a legitimate object for the exercise of the police power. As our civic life has developed so has the definition of ‘public welfare’ until it has been held to embrace regulations ‘to promote the economic welfare, public convenience and general prosperity of the community.' ”

(Miller

v.

Board of Public Works,

195 Cal. 477 [234 Pac. 381, 383, 38 A. L. R. 1479].)

Whether it is reasonably necessary, in the interest of health, safety or welfare of the people, to invade property rights, is primarily a question for the legislative department of the government and its determination, if reasonably exercised, is conclusive upon the courts.

(Hornblower

v.

Masonic Cem. Assn.,

191 Cal. 83, 91 [214 Pae. 978].)