of article IV of the Constitution of the United States, and equality of treatment in regard thereto does not depend upon comity between the States, but is granted and protected by that provision in the Constitution; subject, however, to the restrictions of that instrument that the limitations imposed by a State must operate in the same way on its own citizens and on those of other States. The State's own policy may determine the jurisdiction of its courts and the character of its controversies which shall be heard therein. A statute, therefore, providing that no action can be maintained in the courts of a State for wrongful death occurring in another State except where the deceased was a citizen of the former State, the restriction operating equally upon representatives of the deceased whether they are citizens of the State where the statute was enacted or of other States, does not violate the privilege and immunity provision of the Federal Constitution.24 A statute has also been held constitutional even though it prohibits certain actions between foreign corporations; 25 although a non-resident's right to maintain an action in a state court is not one of the privileges guaranteed by this provision of the Federal Constitution.26 But a provision in a statute to the effect that when the defendant is out of the State, the statute of limitations shall not run against the plaintiff, if the latter resides in the State, but shall if he resides out of the State, is not repugnant to this constitutional provision as to privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.27

§ 294. The Fourteenth Amendment-Generally. -The Fourteenth Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for 24 Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio 741, 16 C. P. 225, 19 N. E. 625, 2 Ry. Co., 207 U. S. 142, aff'g 73 L. R. A. 636, aff'g 1 N. Y. Supp. 418, Ohio, 1. 15 C. P. 88, 56 Sup. Ct. 108, 16 N. Y. St. R. 583, which reverses 16 N. Y. St. R. 871. See §§ 66, 67, herein.

25 Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 63 N. Y. Supp. 987, 50 App. Div. 273.

20 Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 112 N. Y. 315, 20 N. Y. St. R.

27 Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U. S. 72, 23 L. ed. 806.

enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matter respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but is corrective legislation, such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts.28 The prohibitions of this amendment refer to all the instrumentalities of the State, to its legislative, executive and judicial authorities, and whoever, by virtue of a public position under a state government, deprives another of any right protected by that amendment against deprivation by the State, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the State's name and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State.29 The mere

28 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, that, in passing upon the validity of 27 L. ed. 835, 3 Sup. Ct. 18.

"It is well settled that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibit a State from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, add nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another, but are limitations upon the powers of the State, and guaranty immunity from state law and state acts invading the privileges and rights stated in the amendment; that while the government of the United States is, within the scope of its powers, supreme, it can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction by the Constitution of the United States; and that rights and privileges not so placed within its jurisdiction are left to the exclusive protection of the States." Green v. Elbert, 63 Fed. 309.

The cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment are examined in detail, and are held to demonstrate

state legislation under it, this court has not failed to recognize the fact that the law is, to a certain extent, a progressive science; that in some States methods of procedure which, at the time the Constitution was adopted, were deemed essential to the protection and safety of the people, or to the liberty of the citizens have been found to be no longer necessary; that restrictions which had, formerly been laid upon the conduct of individuals or classes had proved detrimental to their interests; and other classes of persons, particularly those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy employments, have been found to be in need of additional protection; but this power of change is limited by the fundamental principles laid down in the Constitution, to which each member of the Union is bound to accede as a condition of its admission as a State. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. 383.

20 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rd. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 41 L. ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. 581.

fact of classification is not sufficient to relieve a statute from the reach of the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in all cases it must not only appear that a classification has been made, but also that it is based upon some reasonable ground, something which bears a just and proper relation to the attempted classification, and is not a mere arbitrary selection. Again, due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government; 31 nor is there any unjust discrimination, or any denial of the equal protection of the laws, in regulations regarding railroads, which are applicable to all alike.32 And requiring the burden of a public service by a corporation, in consequence of its existence and of the exercise of privileges obtained at its request, to be borne by it, is neither denying to it the equal protection of the laws, nor making any unjust discrimination against it.33 Corporations are persons within the meaning of the clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution concerning the deprivation of property, and concerning the equal protection of the laws, and are not to be denied any of the rights therein guaranteed.34

§ 295. Same Subject-Police Power. It is elementary that the Fourteenth Amendment does not deprive the States of their police power over subjects within their jurisdiction.35 *Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. 585, 9 Sup. Ct. 207; McGuire v. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. 255. Co., 131 Iowa, 340, 350, 108 N. W. 902. See § 66, herein.

"Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 38 L. ed. 485, 14 Sup. Ct. 570. "New York & New England Rd. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. ed. 269.

"Charlotte, Columbia & Augusta Rd. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386, 12 Sup. Ct. 255, 35 L. ed. 1051. See New York v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175, 36 L. ed. 666, 12 Sup. Ct. 880.

"Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 32 L. ed.

35 Cummings v. Reading School District, 198 U. S. 458, 49 L. ed. 1125, 25 Sup. Ct. 721; New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Drainage Commissioners, 197 U. S. 453, 25 Sup. Ct. 471, 49 L. ed. 831; Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U. S. 361, 24 Sup. Ct. 673, 48 L. ed. 1018; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 32 L. ed. 253, 8 Sup. Ct. 992; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 28 L. ed. 923, 5 Sup. Ct.

39

So a State has power to regulate grain warehouses; 36 grain elevators; 37 the consolidation of common carrier corporations; 38 the recovery of damages against a railroad for killing live stock; 30 to provide for the extinction of grade crossings as a menace to public safety; 40 for the regulation of carriers of electricity, or electrical conductors; 41 for the regulation of slaughter houses of a corporation; 42 and in general a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, when that jurisdiction is not surrendered, or restrained by the Constitution of the United States; and all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or which may more properly be called internal police, are not restrained, so that in relation to these the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive.43 Again, it is an appropriate exercise of the police power of the State to regulate the use and enjoyment of mining properties, and mine owners are not deprived of their property, privileges or immunities without due process of law or denied the equal protection of the laws by the Illinois mining statute of 1899, which requires the employment of only licensed mine managers and mine examiners, and imposes upon the mine owners liability for the willful failure of the manager and examiner to furnish a reasonably safe place for the workmen. It is also within the power of the State to change or modify, in accord with its conceptions of public policy, the principles of the common law in regard to the relation of master and servant; and, in cases within the

357. See Sprigg v. Garrett Park, 89 Md. 406, 43 Atl. 813; State v. Jackman, 69 N. H. 318, 41 Atl. 347, 42 L. R. A. 438, 3 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 551. See § 149, herein.

39

Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 32 L. ed. 585, Sup. Ct. 207.

9

40 New York & New England Rd. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 14 Sup.

36 Brass v. Stoeser, 153 U. S. 391, Ct. 437, 38 L. ed. 269. 38 L. ed. 14 Sup. Ct.

37 Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 36 L. ed. 247, 12 Sup. Ct. 468. 38 Louisville & Nashville Rd. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 40 L. ed. 849, 16 Sup. Ct. 714.

41 New York v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175, 12 Sup. Ct. 880, 36 L. ed. 666.

42 Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (83 U. S.) 36, 21 L. ed. 394.

43 New York v. Milne, 11 Pet. (36 U. S.) 102, 9 L. ed. 648.

proper scope of the police power, to impose upon the master liability for the willful act of his employee.44 But none of the large police powers of a State can be exercised to such an extent as to work a practical assumption of the powers conferred by the Constitution on Congress, and since the range of the State's police power comes very near to the field committed by the Constitution to Congress, the courts should guard vigilantly against any needless intrusion.45

§ 296. Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States. The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, the provisions of its Constitution or its laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof and it is these which are placed under the protection of Congress by this amendment.46 These privileges or immunities are not abridged by a state enactment prohibiting monopolies, etc., for certain purposes upon penalty of a revocation of a foreign corporation's certificate of authority in case of a violation of the statute.47 Nor does a statute violate this clause as to privileges and immunities where it imposes a liability upon railroad companies for injuries by fire communicated from its right of way.48 A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of this clause and has not the privileges and immunities secured to citizens against state legislation."

$297. Due Process of Law. -Due process of law within the meaning of the Constitution, is secured when the laws operate 44 Wilmington Star Mining Co. v. 991, 106 N. W. 868. But compare Fulton, 205 U. S. 60, 51 L. ed. —, Gage v. State, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 724. 27 Sup. Ct. 48 Brown v. Carolina Midland Ry.

Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. Co., 67 S. C. 481, 46 S. E. 283; Code 465, 24 L. ed. 527.

"Slaughter-House Cases, 10 Wall. (77 U. S.) 273, 19 L. ed. 915; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 14 Sup. Ct. 570, 38 L. ed. 485.

Attorney General v. A. Booth & Co., 143 Mich. 89, 12 Det. Leg. N.

Laws 1902, § 2135.

40 Western Turf Association V. Greenberg, 204 U. S. 359, 51 L. ed.