( Miami Laundry v. Florida Dry CleaningBoard, supra; People v. Barksdale, 104 Colo. 1 [ 87 P.2d 755]; State Dry Cleaners' Board v. Compton, 201 Okla. 284 [ 205 P.2d 286]; Arnold v. Board of Barber Examiners, 45 N.M. 57 [ 109 P.2d 779]; Board of Barber Examiners v. Parker, 190 La. 214, 266 [ 182 So. 485]; State v. McMasters, 204 Minn. 438 [ 283 N.W. 767]; 119 A.L.R. 1481; 111 A.L.R. 353.) The reasoning of the court in the Arnold case is typical of the foregoing decisions: "The record before us discloses the hazards to the health of that large portion of the public which patronizes barber shops, in the price cutting competition which prevails, absent regulation and fixing of the minimum to be charged.

No contention is made in the instant action that these statutory provisions were not complied with when Board entered its order under consideration establishing the minimum prices. State Dry Cleaners' Board v. Compton, 201 Okla. 284, 205 P.2d 286, involved the constitutionality of the Board fixing minimum prices, and we held that price control in an industry affecting the public health, safety and general welfare, like any other form of regulation, is constitutional unless arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the Legislature is free to adopt, and hence an unnecessary and unwarranted interference with individual liberty. We further held that the minimum prices fixed by the Board involved in that action were not discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable.

The trial court entered its judgment on the 17th day of February, 1956, holding that the State Dry Cleaners' Board of Oklahoma was authorized under pertinent statute, to enter its order fixing a higher minimum price for pick-up and delivery service than for a cash and carry service, as affecting those engaged in the cleaning, pressing and dyeing industry in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and specifically found that the order of the Board was not unreasonable or unlawful and that the plaintiff's prayer to vacate the order was denied. In the case of Jack Lincoln Shops, Inc., v. State Dry Cleaners' Board, 192 Okla. 251, 135 P.2d 332, we held that Title 59 O.S. 1941 §§ 741-756[59-741-756] regulating the business of cleaners, pressers and dyers is constitutional and not violative of Sec. 7, Art. 2, of the Oklahoma Constitution. See, also, State Dry Cleaners' Board v. Compton, 201 Okla. 284, 205 P.2d 286. Plaintiff does not challenge the Board's authority to establish minimum prices under Sec. 757 of Title 59, but limits its objection upon the ground that the Board arbitrarily fixed a 10¢ differential between the pick-up and delivery and the cash and carry service, and that the differential so established is not justified by the difference in cost of the two services, and results in a discrimination against the pick-up and delivery service, and in favor of the cash and carry service.