Amend. 14. Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Persons panies by the State incorporating them can not be questioned by a Pennsylvania company seeking to do business in New York, as it is not a "person" within the jurisdiction of New York. Philadelphia Fire Asso. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110. The inhibition of the amendment that no State shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws is designed to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hostile legislation, and a corporation foreign to any given State may not invoke the provision against legislation in such State requiring the payment of a license for the privilege of keeping an office therein, though the word "person" includes a private corporation. Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181. A railroad corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the equality clause. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466. A private corporation not created by the laws of Tennessee nor doing business therein so as to be subject to process from its courts is not " within its jurisdiction" so as to invoke the equality clause. Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239. A foreign railway corporation which has come into the State in compliance with its laws, and has therein acquired property of a permanent nature, upon which it has paid all State taxes, is a person within the jurisdiction of the State and is protected by the equality clause. Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400. The State possesses no power to withdraw corporations from the guaranties of the Federal Constitution. Whatever property a corporation lawfully acquires is held under the same guaranties which protect the property of natural persons from spoliation. Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722; writ of error dismissed in-San Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. 385; judgment Crescent Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 257 U. S. 129. Trusts, monopolies, combinations, or agreements in restraint of trade.-State antitrust acts held not to conflict with this amend ment. National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U. S. 115. Foreign corporations, companies, or firms.-This amendment does not prohibit a State from imposing, for the admission Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Persons within its limits of a corporation of another State, such condi- Pembina, etc., Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181. Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U. S. 560. Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239. Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400. National Council v. State Council, 203 U. S. 151. Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123. Charlotte, etc., R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386. New York v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175. Kentucky Co. v. Paramount Exch., 262 U. S. 544. But a State law which revokes the license of a foreign corporation resorting to a Federal court sitting in the State is unconstitutional. Terral v. Burke Constr. Co., 257 U. S. 529. In general.-A State may establish one system of law in one portion of its territory and another system in another, without discrimination against either, provided always that it neither encroaches upon the proper jurisdiction of the United States nor denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws in the same district. Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22. See also Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68. Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304. L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U. S. 587. Mason v. Missouri, 179 U. S. 328. Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91. Toyota v. Hawaii, 226 U. S. 184. Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U. S. 394. The test laid down in Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. May (194 U. S. 269), that "When a State legislature has declared that in its opinion policy requires a certain measure, its action should not be disturbed by the courts under the fourteenth amendment, unless they can see clearly that there is no fair reason for the law that would not require with equal force its extension to others whom it leaves untouched," has been quoted and followed with approval. Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U. S. 26. Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Discrimination Classification for purposes of legislation is permissible so long as there is no clear and hostile discrimination against particular persons and classes. Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U. S. 245. Against individuals.-The equal protection of the laws is secured if the laws operate on all alike and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 382. In re Grice, 79 Fed. 645, reversed in Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 39. An objection that a State statute denies to a party the equal protection of the law can only be sustained if the statute treat the party differently from what it does others who are in the same situation as he; that is, in the same relation to the purpose of the statute. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445. International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150. Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34. In Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. (220 U. S. 78) the court said: The rules by which this contention must be tested, as is shown by repeated decisions of this court, are these: (1) The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment does not take from the State the power to classify in the adoption of police laws, but admits of the exercise of a wide scope of discretion in that regard, and avoids what is done only when it is without any reasonable basis and therefore is purely arbitrary. (2) A classification having some reasonable basis does not offend against that clause merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. (3) When the classification in such a law is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed. (4) One who assails the classification in such a law must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary. Burdening right to challenge validity of statute.-When the legislature, in an effort to prevent any inquiry of the validity of a particular statute, so burdens any challenge thereof in the courts that the party affected is necessarily constrained to submit rather than take the chances of the penalties imposed, then it becomes a serious question whether the party is not deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Cotting v. Kansas City Stockyards Co., 183 U. S. 102. Elections and right to vote.-The power of a State to change its mode of choosing presidential electors was not taken away by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, because of the additional rights and guaranties therein secured to citizens in re Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Discrimination spect to voting at national elections, though at the time of their adoption all the States chose their electors by elections at large. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1. Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621. Race distinctions-Exclusion of negroes from juries.-This amendment secures, among other civil rights, to colored men, when charged with criminal offenses against a State, an impartial jury trial, by jurors indifferently selected or chosen without discrimination against such jurors because of their color. Immunity from any such discrimination is one of the equal rights of all persons, and any withholding it by a State is a denial of the equal protection of the laws, within the meaning of the amendment. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 345. Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 580. A statute simply providing for an exercise of judgment on the part of the jury commissioners in attempting to secure competent jurors of proper qualifications is valid. Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U. S. 161. When a State officer, in violation of State law, undertakes to deprive an accused party of a right which the statute law affords him, it ought to be presumed that the court will redress the wrong. If the accused is deprived of the right, the final and practical denial will be in the judicial tribunal which tries the case, after the trial has commenced. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 321. Tarrance v. Florida, 188 U. S. 520. Separate schools for white and colored children.-State statutes providing for the education of white and colored children in separate schools are valid. Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 504; concurring opinion of Justice Clifford. Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45. Cumming v. Richmond County, 175 U. S. 545. Separate coaches for white and colored races.-A State statute which provides for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races does not deny the equal protection of the law. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537. McCabe v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 235 U. S. 151. Imposing heavier punishments for interracial offenses.State statutes, prohibiting the offense of adultery and fornication, do not deny the equal protection of the laws by imposing a heavier penalty when the two sexes are of different races than when the two sexes are of the same race. Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed is directed against the 1 See same subject under commerce clause, p. 116. Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Equal Protection-Discrimination offense designated, and not against the person of any particular color or race. Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583. Personal service on resident, constructive service on nonresident.— A drainage law, providing for the sale of land for levee taxes, which requires personal service of summons upon resident owners of lands for at least 20 days before the rendition of the decree of sale, and providing for constructive service by publication upon nonresident owners of only four weeks, does not deny to the nonresident owners the equal protection of the laws. Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241. Requiring bond in attachment against resident.-A Territorial statute authorizing the issue of an attachment against the property of a nonresident defendant in the case of an alleged fraudulent disposition of property which in case of an attachment against a resident requires the giving of a bond by the plaintiff in attachment as a condition for the issue of the writ, whilst it makes no such requirement in the case of an attachment against a nonresident, does not amount to a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Central Loan, etc., Co. v. Campbell, 173 U. S. 97. Foreign attachment.-Distinction in State law requiring nonresident individuals to furnish special security before appearing and defending but allowing foreign corporations to defend on security of attachment lien, not a denial to individuals of equal protection. Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94. Police Power 1 In general. The State has undoubtedly the power, by appropriate legislation, to protect the public morals, the public health, and the public safety, but if, by their necessary operation, its regulations looking to either of those ends amount to a denial to persons within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws, they must be deemed unconstitutional and void. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 558. Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26. Neither this amendment-broad and comprehensive as it isnor any other amendment, was designed to interfere with the power of the State, sometimes termed its police power, to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, educa 1 See same subject, pp. 146, 309, and 672. |