Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Allegiance to And The Manner Of >> And Immunities CivilRights_P1

And Immunities Civil Rights Due Pro Cess of Law

co, ed, ct, sup, equal, persons, fed and cas

Page: 1 2

AND IMMUNITIES ; CIVIL RIGHTS ; DUE PRO CESS OF LAW.

The guaranties of due process of law and of equal protection of the laws are rights secured to all persons whether citizens or not. The two are in most cases treated to gether, though occasionally differentiated. The guaranty means as well equal exemp tion from all burdens as equal accessibility to the courts ; In re Ali Fong, 3 Sawy. 144, Fed. Cas. No. 102; San Mateo County v. R. Co., 13 Fed. 722; Santa Clara County v. R. Co., 18 Fed. 385 ; and it is not confined to citizens, but applies to all persons, native or foreign, within this country ; Fraser v. Torley Co., 82 Fed. 257 ; In re Ah Fong, 3 Sawy. 144, Fed. Cas. No. 102 ; though not non-residents; Steed v. Harvey, 18 Utah 367, 54 Pac. 1011, 72 Am. St. Rep. 789. But in State v. Ins. Co., 70 Conn. 590, 40 Atl. 465, 66 Am. St. Rep. 138, it was said to be only for the benefit of persons physically present within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the amendment securing privileges and immunities, but it is a person under the equal protection clause; Pembina Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsyl vania. 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650; McQuire v. R. Co., 131 Ia. 340, 108 N. W. 902, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 706; Hammond Beef & Provision Co. v. Best, 91 Me. 431, 40 Atl. 338, 42 L. R. A. 528 ; and so is a rail road corporation ; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup, Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819; and a mutual insurance company; Huber v. Mar tin, 127 Wis. 412, 105 N. W. 1031, 1135, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 653, 115 Am. St. Rep. 1023, 7 Ann. Cas. 400. But a private corporation not created by the laws of the state nor doing business in it is not within its jurisdiction so as to invoke the protection of the 14th Amendment; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 19 Sup. Ct. 165, 43 L. Ed. 432; Hawley v. Hurd, 72 Vt. 122, 47 Atl. 401, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 195, 82 Am. St. Rep. 922; the only limitation being when the corporation is in the employment of the federal government or in business which is strictly interstate commerce ; Pembina Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650.

The amendment "was not intended to com pel the state to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation," nor "to prevent a state from ad justing its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways"; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 10 Sup. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892. Taxation must be equal and uniform as well as regards the mode of as sessment as in the rate of charge; San Mateo County v. R. Co., 13 Fed. 722; Santa Clara

County v. R. Co., 18 id. 385 ; but this may be done by different officers if the method is uniform ; San Francisco & N. P. R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 12.

The prohibition against the denial of equal protection of the laws does not require that the law shall have an equality of operation, in the sense of an indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on persons ac cording to their relation. It does not pre vent states from distinguishing, selecting and classifying objects of legislation within a wide range of discretion, provided only that the discretion must be based upon some reasonable ground ; Interstate Consol. St. Ry. Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U. S. 79, 28 Sup. Ct. 26, 52 L. Ed. 111, 12 Ann. Cas. 555; affirming Com. v. Ry. Co., 187 Mass. 436, 73 N. E. 530, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 973, 2 Ann. Cas. 419; some difference which bears a just and proper relation to the classification and not a mere arbitrary selection; Magown v. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 18 Sup. Ct. 594, 42 L. Ed. 1037 ; Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173, 30 Sup. Ct. 644, 54 L. Ed. 987. Legisla tion which regulates business may well make distinctions dependent upon the degrees of evil without being unreasonable or in con flict with the equal protection of the laws ; Heath & Milligan Mfg. Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338, 28 Sup. Ct. 114, 52 L. Ed. 236. The mere fact of classification will not relieve ; it must be based on reasonable grounds and not mere arbitrary selection; but it suffices if the statute is applicable to all persons un der like circumstances and does not subject individuals .to an arbitrary exercise of pow er; Jones v. Brim, 165 U. S. 180, 17 Sup. Ct. 282, 41 L. Ed. 677; or if a law operates alike upon all persons similarly situated; Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578, 9 Sup. Ct. 192, 32 L. Ed. 544; or a law or course of proceedings has been applied to any other person in the state under similar circumstances and con ditions ; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 18 Sup. Ct. 805, 43 L. Ed. 91. Legislation may be limited as to objects or territory if all persons subject to it are treated alike under like circumstances and conditions; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 7 Sup. Ct. 350, 30 L. Ed. 578; Giles v. Teasley, 193 U. S. 148, 24 Sup. Ct. 359, 48 L. Ed. 655. It cannot diseFiminate in taxation against for eign corporations lawfully doing business within the state; Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 30 Ct. 287, 54 L. Ed. 536, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247.

Page: 1 2