This Court does not go behind the construction given to a state
statute by the state courts.
A state statute aimed at an evil and hitting it presumably where
experience shows it to be most felt is not unconstitutional under
the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment because
there might be other instances to which it might be equally well
applied.
It is for the legislature to determine to what classes a police
statute shall apply, and unless there is a clear case of
discrimination, the courts will not interfere.
Section 3 of Chapter 391, Virginia Laws of 1888, reenacting the
Act of 1887 aimed at the evil of payment of labor in orders
redeemable only at the employers' shops and forbidding certain
classes of employers of labor to issue any order for payment
thereto unless purporting
Page 234 U. S. 225
to be redeemable for its face value in lawful money of the
United States, is not an unconstitutional denial of equal
protection of the law because it does not apply to other classes of
employers who also own shops and pay with orders redeemable in
merchandise.
The facts, which involve the constitutionality of a statute of
Virginia providing for method of payment of employees of certain
industries, are stated in the opinion.
Page 234 U. S. 226
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are actions of assumpsit brought by the defendants in
error upon orders signed by employees of the plaintiff in error and
addressed to it, directing it to pay to bearer "in merchandise only
from your store," to the value specified. These orders were upon
scrip issued by the plaintiff in error as an advance of monthly
wages in payment for labor performed, and the only controversy
between the parties arises from the refusal of the plaintiff in
error to pay the indicated amounts in money. The facts were agreed,
the circuit court gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and a writ of
error was refused by the Supreme Court of Appeals. The ground of
the judgment was an Act of February 13, 1888, amending and
reenacting an Act of 1887, c. 391, § 3, forbidding any person,
firm, or corporation engaged in mining coal or ore, or
manufacturing iron or steel or any other kind of manufacturing, to
issue for the payment of labor any order unless the same purported
to be redeemable for its face value in lawful money of the United
States. The plaintiff in error saved its rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment, and, when the court of appeals refused to
hear the cases, brought them here. The writ of error was allowed on
September 25, 1912.
Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v.
Virginia, 225 U. S. 264,
225 U. S.
269.
Of course, we do not go behind the construction given to the
state law by the state courts. The objections that are urged here
are that the statute interferes with freedom of contract, and, more
especially, that it is class legislation
Page 234 U. S. 227
of a kind supposed to be inconsistent with the Fourteenth
Amendment, a West Virginia decision upon a similar statute being
cited to that effect.
State v. Goodwill, 33 W.Va. 179. The
former of these objections, however, is disposed of by
Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S.
13, and
Dayton Coal & Iron Co. v. Barton,
183 U. S. 23.
It is more pressed that the act discriminates unconstitutionally
against certain classes. But, while there are differences of
opinion as to the degree and kind of discrimination permitted by
the Fourteenth Amendment, it is established by repeated decisions
that a statute aimed at what is deemed an evil, and hitting it
presumably where experience shows it to be most felt, is not to be
upset by thinking up and enumerating other instances to which it
might have been applied equally well, so far as the court can see.
That is for the legislature to judge unless the case is very clear.
Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S.
61,
220 U. S. 81;
Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U.
S. 157,
226 U. S. 160;
Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138,
232 U. S. 144.
The suggestion that others besides mining and manufacturing
companies may keep shops and pay their workmen with orders on
themselves for merchandise is not enough to overthrow a law that
must be presumed to be deemed by the legislature coextensive with
the practical need.
Judgments affirmed.
