## Facts

- Oklahoma enacted a Watchmaking Act creating a state board and requiring licensure to practice watchmaking.
- Licensure required registration as an apprentice and completion of a four-year apprenticeship under a licensed watchmaker, along with meeting the board’s licensing conditions.
- Thomas Wood, Jr. practiced watchmaking without the required license.
- The State, on relation of the county attorney, sought an injunction to stop Wood from practicing without a license, asserting public protection as the regulatory purpose.
- Wood challenged the Act as unconstitutional, arguing it unreasonably interfered with the right to pursue a lawful occupation and amounted to an improper restraint on liberty and property.
- The trial court ruled for Wood and refused to enjoin him, effectively rejecting enforcement of the Act.
- The State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Watchmaking Act’s licensing scheme, including a mandatory four-year apprenticeship, is a valid exercise of the state police power or an unconstitutional interference with the right to pursue a lawful occupation.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the trial court.
- The court upheld the Watchmaking Act as constitutional.
- The court concluded the licensing and apprenticeship requirements were not arbitrary or unreasonable and could be enforced against an unlicensed watchmaker.
- The case was to proceed consistent with the Act’s enforceability, permitting injunctive relief to restrain unlicensed practice.

## Legal Principles

- The Legislature may regulate occupations under the police power when regulation is reasonably related to the public welfare, including protection from fraud and incompetence.
- Occupational licensing requirements are valid if they bear a real and substantial relation to the regulatory objective and are not arbitrary, discriminatory, or capricious.
- The liberty interest in pursuing a lawful calling is subject to reasonable regulation; compliance may be required even of those already practicing when uniform standards are imposed.
- A licensing statute is not invalid as a “monopoly” merely because it sets substantial entry requirements, so long as the standards apply generally and are tied to competence.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Oklahoma’s regulation of watchmaking, holding that requiring licensure through a supervised four-year apprenticeship was a reasonable means to protect the public and did not violate due process by unreasonably restricting the right to work in a lawful trade.


State ex rel. Whetsel v. Wood, 207 Okla. 193, 248 P.2d 612 (Okla. 1952)