1. A state statute making it unlawful to sell at retail in any
store or established place of business any spectacles, eyeglasses,
or lenses for correction of vision unless a physician or
optometrist is in charge of the place of sale and in personal
attendance at it, though not providing specifically for an
examination by the specialist, is valid. P.
279 U. S.
339.
2. A statute is not invalid under the Constitution because it
might have gone farther than it did, or because it may not succeed
in bringing about the result that it tends to produce. P.
279 U. S.
339.
3. It being obvious that much good will be accomplished by a
statute requiring the attendance of a physician or optometrist at
any place
Page 279 U. S. 338
where spectacles or eyeglasses are sold at retail, the question
of the expediency of such legislation is not for the courts, and no
presumption will be indulged that the benefits are a pretence and a
cloak for establishing a monopoly. P.
279 U. S.
339.
29 F.2d 762 affirmed.
Appeals from decrees of the district court, three judges
sitting, denying preliminary injunctions and dismissing the bills
in suits to restrain state officers from enforcing a statute
requiring the attendance of a physician or optometrist at places
where spectacles, eyeglasses, or lenses for the correction of
vision are sold at retail. The opinion below was reported
sub
nom. S.S. Kresge Co. v. Ottinger.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are suits brought by dealers in eyeglasses for an
injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Chapter 379 of the New
York Laws of 1928, which amends the Education Law by inserting two
sections, of which the material portion makes it unlawful to sell
at retail in any store or established place of business
"any spectacles, eyeglasses, or lenses for the correction of
vision unless a duly licensed physician or duly qualified
optometrist, certified under this article, be in charge of and [in]
personal attendance at the booth, counter or place where such
articles are sold in such store or established place of
business."
The complainants moved for a preliminary injunction, a statutory
court of three judges was convened, and after a hearing, the
injunction was refused and the bills were dismissed on
Page 279 U. S. 339
the ground that no cause of action was shown. 29 F.2d 762.
The complainants sell only ordinary spectacles with convex
spherical lens, which merely magnify and which, it is said, can do
no harm. The customers select for themselves without being
examined, and buy glasses for a relatively small sum. It is said
that the cost of employing an optometrist would make the
complainants' business impossible, and that, in the common case of
eyes only grown weaker by age, the requirement is unreasonable. But
the argument most pressed is that the statute does not provide for
an examination by the optometrist in charge of the counter. This,
as it is presented, seems to us a perversion of the Act. When the
statute requires a physician or optometrist to be in charge of the
place of sale in personal attendance at it, obviously it means in
charge of it by reason of and in the exercise of his professional
capacity. If we assume that an examination of the eye is not
required in every case, it plainly is the duty of the specialist to
make up his mind whether one is necessary, and, if he thinks it
necessary, to make it. We agree to all the generalities about not
supplying criminal laws with what they omit, but there is no canon
against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they
obviously mean. Moreover, as pointed out below, wherever the
requirements of the Act stop, there can be no doubt that the
presence and superintendence of the specialist tend to diminish an
evil. A statute is not invalid under the Constitution because it
might have gone farther than it did, or because it may not succeed
in bringing about the result that it tends to produce.
Of course, we cannot suppose the Act to have been passed for
sinister motives. We will assume that there are strong reasons
against interference with the business as now done -- but it is
obvious that much good would be accomplished
Page 279 U. S. 340
if eyes were examined in a great many cases where hitherto they
have not been, and the balancing of the considerations of advantage
and disadvantage is for the legislature, not for the courts. We
cannot say, as the complainants would have us say, that the
supposed benefits are a cloak for establishing a monopoly and a
pretense.
Decree affirmed.
