"Classification must have relation to the purpose of the legislature, but logical ap propriateness of the inclusion or exclusion of objects or persons is not required. A classification may not be merely arbitrary, but necessarily there must be great freedom of discretion even though it result in 'ill advised, unequal and oppressive legisla tion'•;" Heath & Milligan Mfg. Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338, 28 Sup. Ct. 114, 52 L. Ed. 236, quoting Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 26 L. Ed. In order to avoid denial of equal protec tion of the laws the police power must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 365, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220.
The for equal protection of the laws and of due process of law are not vio lated by discrimination in the statute ; Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114, 20 Sup. Ct. 284, 44 L. Ed. 392.
As there is no vested right in procedures the guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not violated by change of previous deci sions of the state court on questions of pro cedure; Backus v. Union Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557, 18 Sup. Ct.. 445, 42 L. Ed. 853.
What may be regarded as a denial of the equal protection of the laws is a question not always easily determined, as the deci sions of this court and the highest courts of the states will show. It is sometimes diffi cult to show that a state enactment, having its source in a power not controverted, in fringes rights protected by the national con stitution. 'No rule can be formulated that will cover every case. But upon this general qtrestion we have said that the guaranty of the:equal protection of the law means "that no person or class of persons shall be de nied-the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances." Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 558, 22 Sup. Ct. 431, 46 L. Ed. 679, quot ing Bowman v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 25 L. Ed. 989; In re Doo Woon, 18 Fed. 898.
The South Carolina supreme court, in ref erence to the law imposing special liability for fires caused by locomotives, thus com ments on the federal cases "Let it be noted . . . the classification for the of special liability was not affected by the fact that, there,were other common carriers operating with steam which might communi cate fire or whose employs might sustain injury through the negligence of their fellow servants ; thus showing that a classification need not include all engaged in a general business, as the business of carrying freight and passengers, it may simply embrace rt. more limited class, who carry freight and passengers in a particular way, or by par ticular instrumentalities." McCandless v. R. Co., 38 S. C. 116, 16 S. E. 429, 18 L. R. A. 440. • State laws or official action held not to deny the equal protection of the laws are: Prescribing rules of evidence, as by prevent ing Chinese from testifying in,a case where a white person is a party ; People v. Brady, 40 Cal. 198, 6 Am. Rep. 604 (but under the Civil Rights Bill, negroes were entitled to the benefit of this law ; People v. Washing ton, 36 Cal. 658) ; prohibiting the landing of lewd women from passenger steamers; Ex parte Ah rook, 49 Cal. 402; regulating slaughter houses; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; authorizing the recovery of double value for property de stroyed by railroad trains ; Tredway v. R. Co., 43 Ia. 527 ; excluding women from em ployment in saloons or other places where in toxicating liquor is sold; Ex parte Hayes, 98 Cal. 555, 33 Pac. 337, 20 L. R. A. 701;
Foster v. Board of Police Com'rs, 102 Cal. 483, 37 Pac. 763, 41 Am. St. Rep. 194; State v. Reynolds, 14 Mont. 383, 36 Pac. 449 ; City of Hoboken v. Goodman, 68 N. J. L. 217, 51 Atl. 1092 ; Bergman v. Cleveland, 39 Ohio St. 651; State v. Considine, 16 Wash. 358, 47 Pac. 755; In re Considine, 83 Fed. 157; but contra, In re •Maguire, 57 Cal. 604, 40 Am. Rep. 125 (and an ordinance making it a mis demeanor for any woman to go into a build ing where liquor is sold, or to stand within fifty feet of such a building, was held an un necessary interference with individual liber ty ; Gastenau v. Corn., 108 Ky. 473, 56 S. W. 705, 49 L. R. A. 111, 94 Am. St. Rep. 386) ; prohibiting women from frequenting places for the sale of intoxicating liquors; Ex parte Smith, 38 Cal. 709; People v. Case, 153 Mich. 98, 116 N. W. 558, 18. L. R. A. (N. S.) 657; Cronin v. Adams, 192 U. S. 108, 24 Sup. Ct. 219, 48 L. Ed. 365, affirming Adams v. Cron in, 29 Colo. 488, 69 Pac. 590, 63 L. R. A. 61; imposing more severe penalties for adultery between persons of different races ; Ellis v. State, 42 Ala. 525 ; Ford v. State, 53 Ala. 150; Green v. State, 58 Ala. 190, 29 Am. Rep. 739; Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583, 1 Sup. Ct. 637, 27 L. Ed. 207; forbidding marriages between whites and blacks ; Hoover v. State, 59 Ala. 57 ; Ex parte Francois, 3 Woods 367, Fed. Cas. No. •5,047; Ex parte Kinney, 3 Hughes 9, Fed. Cas. No. 7,825 ; or declaring such marriages null and void; In re Hobbs, 1 Woods 537, Fed. Cas. No. 6,55U; regulating the charges of storage warehouses; Munn v.. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; Munn v. People, 69 Ill. 80; providing for territorial and municipal regulations for, different parts.
of the state ; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 25 L. Ed. 989; forbidding bankers and bro kers, knowing that they are insolvent, to re ceive money; Baker v. State, 54 Wis. 368, 12 N. W. 12; imposing a tax on corporations measured by the amount of dividends paid, part of such dividends being derived from capital invested in United States bonds ex empted from taxation ; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, 10 Sup. Ct. 593, 33 L Ed. 1025 ; the provision of the Mississippi constitution prescribing a test of literacy for voting ; Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213, 18 Sup. Ct. 583, 42 L. Ed. 1012; an or der dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding to custody a prisoner held in con tempt when it appeared that the same proce dure would 'be applied to any other person in the state under similar circumstances and conditions; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 18 Sup. Ct. 805, 43 L. Ed. 91; as a penalty for non-compliance with police regu lations ; Dow v. Beidelman, 49 Ark. 455, 5 S. W. 718 ; allowing a reasonable attorney's fee as part of a judgment against a railroad company for damage by fire ; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 19 Sup. Ct. 609, 43 L. Ed. 909 (distinguishing Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666; where a stat ute, allowing such fees in suits against rail road companies, for ordinary claims, was held unconstitutional); allowing a defendant on trial for homicide a less number of chal lenges with a struck jury than an ordinary one; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 20 Sup. Ct. 77, 44 L. Ed. 119; prohibiting any person, corporation or firm from issuing any order, etc., payable otherwise than in money -what are commonly known as store or ders ; Johnson, Lytle & Co. v. Spartan Mills,