So the guaranty is not infringed by com pulsory vaccination; Jacobson v. Massachu setts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 Sup. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643; 3 Ann. Cas. 765 ; prohibition against sales of options on grain; Booth v. Illinois, 184 U. S. 425 ; regulating charges of ware housemen ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; the danger that testimony taken in a proceeding under a state law may in criminate 'the witness in a possible prosecu tion under the federal anti-trust law ; Jack v. Kansas, '199 U. S. 372, 26 Sup. Ct. 73, 50 L. Ed. 234, 4 Ann. Cos. 689; or by' the de structidn of the valtie of property by statute forbidding the manufacture or sale of intoxi cating liquors ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S; 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205 ; Or of oleomargarine ; Capital City Dairy Ohio, 183 U. S. 238; 22 Sup. Ct. 120, 46' Ed. 171; or by taxing artificially colored oleomargarine, even if the tax will .suppress the manufacture ; McCray v. U. S., 195 U. S. 27, 24 Sup. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; making water rents a prior lien on land; Provident Inst. for Savings v. Jersey City, 113 U. S. 506, 5 Sup. Ct. 612, 28 L. Ed. 1102; subordinating claims of non-resident mortgagee to those of resident creditors of a foreign corporation; Sully v. Bank, 178 U. 8, 289, 20 Sup. Ct. 935, 44 L. Ed. 1072; the appointnient of a receiver in a' railroad fore closure suit ; St. Louis, G. & Ft. S. By. Co. v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 478, .15 Sup. Ct. 443, 39 L. Ed. 502; precluding defense by life insurance company based on false and fraud ulent statement in application unless the mat ter represented actually contributed to the death of the insured ; Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U. S. 243, 27 Sup. Ct. 126, 51 L. Ed. 168, 7 Ann. Cas. 1104 (where it was said that liberty means liberty of natural and not artificial persons); as sessment for opening streets on the front foot rule, held not void because levied after the work was completed or because, when the work was ordered, the city could under a statute repealed after the work was com pleted and before assessment, include part of the expenses in general taxes and levy the assessment on a valuation basis under which a smaller amount would have been assessed against these lands ; of Seattle v. Kelleher, 195 U. S. 351, 25 Sup. Ct. 44, 49 L. Ed. 232 ; the imposition of some duty on transfer of stock ; New York v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 27 Sup. Ct. 188, 51 L. Ed. 415, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; limiting to eight hours a day the period of work in under-ground mines ; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780; a New York tax on a Pennsylvania fire insurance company on premiums received in New York, being the same that was required in Pennsylvania ; Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 7 Sup. Ct. 108, 30 L. Ed. 342 (where it was held a condition precedent to doing business in the state).
The grant by a state to a corporation of the exclusive right or privilege of maintain ing slaughter houses, guarded by proper lim itation of prices to be charged and imposing the duty of providing ample conveniences, with permission to all owners of stock to land, and to all butchers to slaughter, at those places is valid; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. (I.T. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394.
Among the statutes and judicial or admin istrative proceedings which have been held not to be obnoxious to the XIVth Amend ment, as deprivation of property without due process of law, are the following: Pro viding for the widening of a street ; Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S. 316, 11 Sup. Ct. 825, 35 L. Ed. 419 ; regulating contests between per sons claiming judicial offices ; Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480, 23 L. Ed. 478; mak ing water rates a charge on lands prior to liens ; Provident Inst. for Savings v. Jersey City, 113 U. S. 506, 5 Sup. Ct. 612, 28 L. Ed. 1102.; authorizing any person to and maintain a mill dam in a navigable stream, paying to the owners of the lands affected damages assessed in a judicial proceeding; Head v. Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 9,, 5 Sup. Ct. 441, 28 L. Ed. 889 ; providing. for drainage of low lands, damages to be assessed by commis sioners after notice and hearing; Wurts v.
Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606, 5 Sup. Ct. 1086, 29 L. Ed. 229; a tax law giving notice to the taxable by requiring statement of his prop erty, with public sessions when he has a right to be present and to be heard, with an opportunity in a suit at law to contest the validity of the proceeding ; Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 115 U. S. 321, 0 Sup. Ct. 57, 29 L. Ed. 414; for valuation and classification of property with different pro visions as to different classes for ascertain ing the value and a right of appeal, applying the same means and methods to individuals of each class; Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. It. Co. v. Kentucky, 115 U. S. 321, 6 Sup. Ct. 57, 29 L. Ed. 414; requiring railroads to erect and maintain cattle guards and in default thereof to be liable for double damages ; Mis souri Pac. R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 6
Sup. Ct. 110, 29 L. Ed. 463 ; or to fence a track under penalty of double damages ; Min neapolis St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 9 Sup. Ct. 207, 32 L. Ed. 585; Spealman v. Ry. Co., 71 Mo. 434 ; the imposition upon property of a tax or other burden for rec lamation of swamp lands; Reclamation Dist. No. 108 v. Hagar, 4 Fed. 366 ; and see Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S. 316, 11 Sup. Ct. 825, 35 L. Ed. 419; Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578, 9 Sup. Ct. 192, 32 L. Ed. 544; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421, 14 Sup. Ct. 1114, 38 L. Ed. 1031; a paving law originating proceedings on petition of two-thirds of the owners of lots bordering on a street, and taxing abutting owners; Schaef er v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516, 23 Sup. a. 449.; 47 L. Ed. 570; Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 310, 24, Sup. Ct. 88, 48 L. Ed. 195 ; and as to back-lying property ; Voris v. Glass Co., 163 Ind. 599, 70 N. E. 249 ; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Porter, 210 U. S. 177, 28 Sup. Ct. 647, 52 L. Ed. 1012 (where it was held that the legislature may create back taxing districts of property extending back); assessment, for paving, etc., not because lot is not benefited by the improvements ow ing to its present use; the land must be con sidered simply in its general relations and apart from its particular use at the time; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Paving Co., 197 U. S. 430, 25 Sup. Ct. 466, 49 L. Ed. 819; charg ing the cost of paving against lots fronting on a. street according to the frontage, the XIVth Amendment being held not, applicable; French v. Paving Co., 181 U. S. 324, 21 Sup. Ct. 625, 45 L. Ed. 879; providing for sessment of damages for laying out, streets upon owners of land benefited there by and determining the amount of tax and also what lands are benefited, with notice to and hearing of each owner at some stage of the proceeding upon the question of his pro portion of the tax to be assessed; People v. City of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419, 55 Am. Dec. 266; Spencer v. Merchant, 125•13. S. 345, 8 Sup. Ct. 921, 31 L. Ed. 763;- an order of drainage cornthissioners requiring a railroad company at its own expense to remove a bridge and culvert over a natural water course and to erect a new one in conformity with the regulations established by the com missioners ; C., B. & Q. Ry. v. People, 200 U. S. 561, 26 Sup. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. 596 ; mak ing railroad companies liable for damage to employs caused by the negligence of fellow servants; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205, 8 Sup. Ct. 1161, 32 L. Ed. 107; authorizing a city to open and improve streets and assess damages against the own ers of adjacent lots; Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578, 9 Sup. Ct. 192, 32 L. Ed. 544 ; con verting an appearance d. b. e. into a general appearance and submission to jurisdiction ; Birmingham v. R. Co., 137 N. Y. 15, 32 N. E. 995, 18 L. R. A. 764 ; if it does not attempt to restrain the suitor from fully protecting his life, liberty and property against any at tempt to enforce a judgment against him withciut due process of law ; Kauffman v. Wooters, 138 U. S. 285, 11 Sup. Ct. 298, 34 L. Ed. 962; a municipal ordinance prohibit= ing a private market within six squares of any public market under penalty of trial by magistrate; Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621, 11 Sup. Ct. 636, 35 L. Ed. 288 ; an ordi nance closing laundries between 10 p. m. and a. m., it being held merely a police regula tion and not a violation of the XIVth Amend ment; Barbler v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed. 923; so also a stat ute forbidding inn-keepers, common carriers, theatres, schools and cemetery associations from excluding any person by reason of race or color ; People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418, 18 N. E. 245, 1 L. R. A. 293, 6 Am. St. Rep. 389; a statute requiring an annual license tax from foreign corporations which do not in Vest and use their capital within the state ; Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650 ; an af firmance on appeal of death sentence in the absence of the accused and his counsel and without notice to either ; Schwab v. Berg gren, 143 U. S. 442, 12 Sup. Ct. 525, 36 L. Ed. 218; punishment of death by electricity ; McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 155, 12 Sup. Ct. 156, 35 L. Ed. 971; trials without a jury if according to the settled course of proceed ings; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 23 L. Ed. 678; Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 283 ; Janes v. Reynolds' Adm'rs, 2 Tex. 250 ; whether by motion or action, if sanctioned by state law and with opportunity for hearing ; Iowa C. Ry. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 16 Sup. Ct. $44, 40 L. Ed. 467 ; and the hearing need not be according to the practice of the courts, but by appropriate judicial proceedings ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. State, 47 Neb. 549, 86 N. W. 624, 41 L. R. A. 481, 53 Am. St. Rep. 557 ; the decisions of administrative officers under the immigration acts ; Nishi mura Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S. 651, 12 Sup.