Cooley (Const. Lim. 441) says : "Due pro cess of law in each particular case means, such an exercise of the powers of the gov ernment as the settled maxims of law per mit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs." Taking property under the taxing power is taking it by due process of law; High v. Shoemaker, 22 Cal. 363 ; Springer v. U. S., 102 U. S. 586, 26 L. Ed. 253. In this connec tion, it is said in State v. Allen, 2 McCord (S. C.) 56: "We think that any legal process which was originally founded in necessity, has been consecrated by time, and approved and acquiesced in by universal consent, . . is embraced in the alternative 'law of the land"' In Brown v. Levee Com'rs, 50 Miss. 479, it is said that these constitutional provisions do not mean. the general body of the law as it was at the time the constitution took effect; but they refer to certain funda mental rights which that system of juris prudence of which ours is derivative has al ways recognized ; if any of these are disre garded in the proceedings by which a person is condemned to the loss of property, etc., then the deprivation has not been by due pro cess of law. And it has been held that the state cannot deprive a person of his prop erty without due process of law through the medium of a constitutional convention any more than it can through an act of the leg islature ; Clark v. Mitchell, 69 Mo. 627. Ex action of tolls under a state statute for the use of an improved waterway, is not a dep rivation of property within the federal con stitution ; Sands v. Improv. Co., 123 U. S. 288, 8 Sup. Ct. 113, 31 L. Ed. 149.
It follows necessarily, from the confessed inability of the courts to form a general def inition and their settled rule of dealing with each case separately upon its own facts, that in a discussion of• the subject it is conven ient to illustrate the course of decisions by a selection of them showing different phases of the application of the principle.
Limitations on the Legislation of the States. Acts of a municipal corporation are not wanting in due process of law if such acts, when done or ratified by the state, would not be inconsistent with the Amendment, the latter being not intended to bring under fed eral control everything done by states ille gally under state laws, but only the acts of states or their instrumentalities in violations of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States ; Owensboro Waterworks Co. v. Owensboro, 200 U. S. 38, 26 Sup. Ct. 249, 50 L. Ed. 361; it does not control mere forms of procedure in state courts or regu late their practice. It only requires that the person condemned has had sufficient notice and an adequate opportunity to defend ; Lou isville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U. S. 230, 20 Sup. Ct. 620, 44 L. Ed. 747. The guaranty is secured within the meaning of the Amend ment if the law operates on all alike and does not subject the individual to an arbi trary exercise of the powers of government ; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 11 Sup. Ct. 577, 35 L. Ed. 225; it requires only that a person accused of crime shall be subjected to law in the regular course of the administra tion in courts of justice ; In re Converse, 137 U. S. 624, 11 Sup. Ct. 191, 34 L. Ed. 796; that the accused be present at every stage of the trial, but not in the appellate court, when he has counsel, and when that court is merely deciding as to prejudicial error below ; Dow dell v. U. S., 221 U. S. 325, 31 Sup. Ct. 590, 55 L. Ed. 753.
"No right, privilege, or immunity in re spect of due process, at any stage in the duty of affording it arises under the XIVth Amendment unless there be denial of the right by the state or its officers;" no im, munity is secured against the lawlessness of private individuals who take a prisoner from the custody of the state officers and murder him to prevent his haying the benefits of a trial by ,operation of the State's established course of judicial procedure ; U. S. v. Pow, ell, 151 Fed. 648, a very comprehensive opin ion by Jones, D. J., in the circuit court of Alabama.
While the XIVth Amendment protects the citizen in his right to engage in any lawful business, it does not prevent legislation in tended to regulate useful occupations, which, because of their nature and location, may prove injurious or offensive to the public. It does not prevent a municipality from pro hibiting any business which is inherently vicious and harmful ; nor does it prevent a state from regulating or prohibiting a non useful occupation which may become harm ful to the public, and the regulation or pro hibition need not be postponed until the evil is flagrant ; Murphy v. California, 225 U. S. 623, 32 Sup. Ct. 697, 56 L. Ed. 1229, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153. , There is nothing in the XIVth Amendment to prevent a state from requiring individuals to make, on receiving due com pensation, such concessions to each other as the public welfare demands, and a statute permitting the exercise of the right of em inent domain for railways, etc., for working mines, was held to be constitutional and to authorize condemnation of the right to cross the land of a private owner by an aerial bucket line, necessary for the working of a mine ; Strickley v. Min. Co., 200 U. S. 527; 26 Sup. Ct. 301, 50 L. Ed. 581, 4 Ann. Cas. 1174 ; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 25 Sup. Ct. -676, 49 L. Ed. 1085, 4 Ann. Cas.• 1171.
Acts and Proceedings Held Valid. Stat utes or ordinances which have been held valJ id as not being deprivations of liberty or property without due process of law are: Prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weap ons; Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 14 Sup.
Ct. 874, 38 L. Ed. 812 ; creating a board of registration for physicians ; Reetz v. Mich igan, 188 U. S. 505; 23 Sup. Ct. 390, 47 L. Ed. 563 (where it was said that due process of law is not necessarily judicial process and the right of appeal is not essential to it); taxing stocks of railroads in other states (held not unconstitutional because no sim ilar tax was laid upon stock of domestic railroads or foreign railroads doing business in Alabama, the property of the former class of railroads being untaxed and that of the latter two classes being taxed by the state); Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730, 23 Sup. Ct. 401, 47 L. Ed. 669 ; imposing a personal tax on all property in or out of the state; Glid den V. Harrington, 189 U. S. 255; 23 Sup. Ct. 574, 47 L. Ed. 798 (where it was said that what is required by the XIVth Amendment, in the assessment of ordinary annual- taxes on personal property, should be construed liberally, and while notice may be required, it need not be personal, but may be by pub lication or by posting at polling places, and It was also held in another case that in con demning property for municipal purposes, it is sufficient to give notice by publication, with opportunity for hearing ; Wight v. Da vidson, 181 U. S. 371, 21 Sup. Ct. 616, 45' L. Ed. 900). So the right is not infringed by imposing liabilities on particular classes, as an act making persons driving herds over a highway liable for damages done to it ; Jones v. Brim, 165 U. S. 180, 17 Sup. Ct. 282, 41 L. Ed. 677; or sheep owners for grazing on the public domain; Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311, 27 Sup. Ct„. 289, 51 L. Ed. 499; or mak ing railroads liable to employes for the neg ligence of fellow employes ; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205, 8 Sup. Ct. 1161, 32 L. Ed. 107 ; or for fires caused by locomo tives; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Mathews, 165 U. S. 1, 17 Sup. Ct. 243, 41 L. Ed. 611; or requiring railroads to pay damages for the diminution in value of farms by the com pany's failure to put up fences and cattle guards; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Em mons, 149 U. S. 364, 13 Sup. Ct. 870, 37 L. Ed. 769; requiring log owners to pay fees of state officer for surveying and scaling logs; Lindsay '& P. Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 20 Sup. Ct. 325, 44 L. Ed. 400 ; making mine owners liable for defaults of mine managers and examiners selected by them under a state law ; Wilmington ,Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 205 U. S. 60, 27 Sup. Ct. 412, 51 L. Ed. 708; requiring railroad stockholders to Pay. their just propcirtion of bonded debt; Union Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 99 U. S. 700, 25 L Ed. 496; the exaction of tolls for the use of aw improved water way; Sands v. Imp. Co., 123 U. S. 288, 8 Sup. Ct. 113, 31 L. Ed. 149; Subjecting buildings used for gaming to the payment of money lost at play ; Marvin V. Trout, 199 U. S. 212, 26 Sup. Ct. 31, 50 L. Ed. 157; authorizing the' destruction of nets used in illegal fishing ; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 14 Sup. Ct. 499, 38 L. Ed. 385 ; subjecting a railroad corporation to a rule of negligence 'prescribed by a general act under which it Is incorporated; Chicago, R. I. & 'P. R. Co. v. Zernecke, 183 U. S. 582, 22 Sup. Ct. 229, 46 L. Ed. 339 ; taking private property under state law authorizing the ex ercise' of the right of eminent domain for taking private property ; Missotri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 17 Sup. Ct. 130, 41 L. Ed. 489; as corporate franchises ; Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13, 26 L. Ed. 961; for flooding lands ; Manigault v. Strings, 199 U. S. 473, 26 Sup. Ct. 127, 50 L. Ed. 274; construction of a leVee ; Eldridge Trezevant, 160 U. S. 452, 16 Sup. Ct. 345,. 40 L. Ed. 490; condemnation of a right of way across a*placer mining claim ; Strickley v. Min. Co., 200 U. S. 527, 26 Sup. Ct. 301; 50 L. Ed. 581, 4 Ann. Cas. 1174; constructing a dam in a stream not navigable, paying the damage to owners; Head v. Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 9, 5 Sup. Ct. 441, 28 L. Ed. 889; condem nation of shares of stock of a railroad for its improvement under a state law ; Offield v. R. Co., 203 U. S. 372, 27 Sup. Ct. 72, 51 L. Ed. 231; acts imposing special burdens on public service corporations, • as requiring an electric company to pay salaries to commis sioners to supervise them ; New York v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175, 12 Sup. Ct. 880, 36 L. • Ed. 666; compelling a railroad company to pay for the removal of a grade crossing ; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. Ed. 269; requiring the removal of a bridge and Culvert; Chi cago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 5611 26 Sup. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. •596, 4 Ann. Cas. 1175 ; requiring the towering or removal of a tunnel which had become an obstruction to navigation since its construction ; West Chi cago St. R. Co. v. Illinois, 201 U. S. 506, 26 Sup. Ct. 518, 50 L. Ed. 845 ; requiring a rail road company to pay' for examiners as to competency of its employes; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96, 9 Sup. Ct. 28, 32 L. Ed. • 352; requiring railroad to furnish track connections at intersections ; Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. 115, 45 L. Ed. 194; re quiring a gas company to change the location of its pipes ; New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Drainage Commission, 197*U. S. 25 Sup. Ct. 471; 49 L. Ed. 831.