Ct. 336, 35 L. Ed. 1146 ; trial and sentence by a judge de facto of a court de Pure, though appointed by the governor without author ity ; In re Manning, 139 U. S. 504, 11 Sup. Ct. 624, 35 L. Ed. 264 ; conviction before a de facto officer ; In re Ah Lee, 5 Fed. 899, 6 Sawy. 410 ; altering the mode of fixing water rates in a city ; Spring Valley Water Works v. Bartlett, 16 Fed. 615, 8 Sawy. 555 ; validating ultra vires contracts ; Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477, 2 Sup. Ct. 940, 27 L. Ed. 795 ; trebling taxation as a penalty for fraud ; State v. Moss, 69 Mo. 495 ; limiting municipal taxation to prevent payment of a judgment ; State v. Mayor of New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285, 3 Sup. Ct. 211, 27 L. Ed. 936; proceeding by information ; Rowan v. State, 30 Wis. 129, 11 Am. Rep. 559 ; Hurtado v. People, 110 U. S. 516, 4 Sup. Ct. 111, 292, 28 L. Ed. 232, as explained and af firmed in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 20 Sup. Ct. 448, 494, 44 L. Ed. 597; McNulty v. California, 149 U. S. 645, 13 Sup. Ct. 959, 37 L. Ed. 882 ; Hodgson v. Vermont, 168 U. S. 262, 18 Sup. Ct. 80, 42 L. Ed. 461; Bolin v. Nebraska, 176 U. S. 83, 20 Sup. Ct. 287, 44 L. Ed. 382 ; Davis v. Burke, 179 U. S. 399, 21 Sup. Ct. 210, 45 L. Ed. 249 ; contra, Shaw, C. J., in Jones v. Robbins, 8 Gray (Mass.) 329 ; see also State v. Starling, 15 Rich. (S. C.) 120 ; the trial of cases without a jury ; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 23 L. Ed. 678 ; the principle with respect to such de tails being that the provision against taking property without due process of law does not apply where the party has had a fair trial in a court of justice according to the modes of proceeding applicable to such case ; Da vidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 616; Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480, 23 L. Ed. 478 ; the fact that the judgment of a commissioner is final does not operate as a deprivation of due process of law ; Ex Parte Ah Fook, 49 Cal. 402; nor does the entry of a judgment on forfeited recognizance People v. Quigg, 59 N. Y. 83 ; a statute au thorizing the immigration commissioner to prevent the landing of lewd women ; Ex Parte Ah Fook, 49 Cal. 402 ; prohibiting any person from making or mending bur glars' tools ; Ex parte Roberts, 166 Mo. 207, 65 S. W. 726 ; prohibiting saloons from sell ing liquor in places where women are per mitted to enter ; Cronin v. Adams, 192 U. S. 108, 24 Sup. Ct. 219, 48 L. Ed. 365 (where the court said: "There Is no inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquors by retail ; it is not a privilege of a citizen of a state or of a citizen of the United States); a statute making the owner of premises on which liquor is sold with his knowledge lia ble for all damages resulting from the in toxication of any person purchasing the liq uor ; Bertho]f v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509, 30 Am. Rep. 323 ; an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of billiard halls (not unconstitutional either as depriving the owner of his prop eity without due process of law, or as de priving him of the equal protection of the laws) ; Murphy v. California, 225 U. S. 623, 32 Sup. Ct. 697, 56 L. Ed. 1229, 41 L. R. A. (N. 5_,) 153 ; (and the classification regulating billiard halls based on hotels having twenty five rooms is reasonable ; Murphy v. Califor nia, 225 U. S. 623, 32 Sup. Ct. 697, 56 L. Ed. 1229, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153) ; the discharge of a jury in a murder trial for cause shown before being sworn ; Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U. S. 164, 26 Sup. Ct. 189, 50 L. Ed. 421 (where it was held that the amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of the state to protect life, liberty or property of citizens, or with the power of adjudica tion of its courts, in administering process provided by, the state law) ; regulation by the state of admission of persons to places of amusement, with the provision that per sons holding tickets therefor shall be ad mitted if not under the influence of liquor, boisterous or of immoral character ; Western Turf Ass'n v. Greenberg, 204 U. S. 359, 27 Sup. Ct. 384, 51 L. Ed. 520 ; statutes au thorizing the administration on the estates of absentees if the period of absence be and not unreasonably brief ; Cunnius v. School Dist., 198 U: S. 458, 25 Sup. Ct. 721, 49 L. Ed. 1125, 3 Ann. Cas. 1121, affirming id., 206 Pa. 469, 56 Atl. 16, 98 Am. St. Rep. 790 ; a municipal ordinance providing for the inspection of good products kept in stor age and for the summary seizure and de struction of what is unfit for use ; North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 151 Fed. 120; the restriction of the right of ap peal to an intermediate appellate court in lieu of the state supreme court ; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 25 L. Ed. 989 ; a review by an appellate court of final judgment in a criminal case not being necessary to consti tute due process ; McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684, 14 Sup. Ct. 913, 38 L. Ed. 867 ; the entry of a judgment on a bond which is for feited is not invalid ; Janes v. Reynolds' Adm'rs, 2 Tex. 250 ; nor the entry of a judg ment for money which is void for want of proper service ; York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct. 9, 34 L. Ed. 604 ; authorizing the sale of animals running at large ; Campau v. Langley, 39 Mich. 451, 33 Am. Rep. 414 ; making a garnishee liable to pay a judg ment if he fails to render a sworn account ; Vaughan v. Furlong, 12 R. I. 127 ; conviction and sentence to death pf a prisoner when after the verdict one of the jurors was in sane, the court having upon inquiry found that he was of sufficient mental capacity dur ing the trial to act as a juror ; Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U. S. 167, 32 Sup. Ct. 651,
56 L. Ed. 1038.
A transfer or succession tax is valid ; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23 Sup. Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439; Magoun v. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 18 Sup. Ct. 594, 42. L. Ed. 1037; it does not violate either the XIVth Amend ment or sec. 10 of art. I, of the Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 22 Sup. Ct. 213, 46 L. Ed. 196 (where it was held that the opinion in Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 1? How. [U. S.) 456, 15 L. Ed. 127, though prioi to the XIVth Amendment, correctly defines the limits of jurisdiction between the state and federal governments in respect of con the assets of decedents both before and after that amendment); nor does a state inheritance tax; Campbell v. California, 200 U. S. 87, 26 Sup. Ct. 182, 50 L. Ed. 382 (where it was said that the XIVth Amendment does not deprive the state of the right to regulate and burden the right of inheritance, but at the most can only be held to restrain such an exercise of power as would exclude the con ception of judgment and discretion and be so obviously arbitrary and unreasonable as to be beyond the pale of governmental au thority); a provision in the California con stitution that "all contracts for the sales of shares of capital stock of any corporation or association on margin shall be void and any money paid on such contracts may be re covered by the party paying it by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction," directed against sales on margins ; Ottis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 23 Sup. Ct. 168, 47 L. Ed. 323. A tax law which gives a right to be heard, but does not extend a rehearing on appeal to railroad companies, though it does to ordinal. ry taxpayers, is valid ; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421, 14 Sup. Ct. 1114, 38 L. Ed. 1031, where Brewer, J., says: `The power of a , state to make classifications in judicial or administrative proceedings carries with it the right to make such a classification as will give to parties belonging to one class two hearings and to parties belonging to a different class only a single hearing ;" and on this authority a statute making final the decision of an in ferior court in a local option election con test was held valid ; Saylor v. Duel, 236 Ill, 429, 86 N. E. 119, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 377.
See EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
An erroneous decision does not deprive the unsuccessful party of liberty without due process of law ; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 16 Sup. Ct. 80, 40 L. Ed. 91; nor do mere errors in the administration of a state statute not unconstitutional ; Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S. 316, 11 Sup. Ct. 825, 35 L. Ed. 419 ; nor imprisonment under a valid law, though there was error in the proceed ings ; In re Ah Lee; 5 Fed. 899 ; nor error in a charge to a jury in a criminal case; Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S. 651, 11 Sup. Ct. 675, 35 L. Ed. 300. The guaranty is not vio lated by an order requiring an attorney to defend an accused person gratuitously ; Presby v. Klickitat County, 5 Wash. 329, 31 Pac. 876. The XIVth Amendment did not change the law as held prior to it that regula tion of the use, or even of the price of use, of private property, was not deprivin the owner of it without due process of law Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77. Acts and Proceedings Which Violate th, Gilairanty of Due Process of Law. Acts of 1 state held to infringe the guaranty of du process of law are: Taking property by thi state for public use without compensation Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S 226, 17 Sup. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 979; Norwoo; v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 19 Sup. Ct. 187, 43 Ed. 443 ; Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. R. Co. N Kentucky, 115 U. S. 321, 6 Sup. Ct. 57, 29 L Ed. 414; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 1! Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819 ; Chicago, B. & Q R. Co. v. Drainage Com'rs, 200 U. S. 561, 21 "Sup. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. 596 ; and so also i taken under a judgment of the state cour though authorized by statute ; Chicago, B. Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 17 Sup Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 979 ; but if compensation was provided for before a proper tribun there is due process of law ; Backus v. De pot Co., 169 U. S. 557, 18 Sup. Ct. 445, 42 L Ed. 853; Otis Co. v. Mfg. Co., 201 U. S. 140 26 Sup. Ct. 353, 50 L. Ed. 696. The exclusion of colored men on account of race from thl grand jury was held a denial of rights unde the XIVth Amendment ; Rogers v. Alabama 192 U. S. 226, 24 Sup. Ct. 257, 48 L. Ed. 417 Other acts held unconstitutional were One forbidding the manufacture of cigar in tenement houses ; In re Jacobs, 98 N. 98, 50 Am. Rep. 636 ; and a New York stat 'ate respecting the sale of oleomargarine People v. Rosenberg, 138 N. Y. 410, 34 N. E 285 (on the other hand the constitutionalit of the Pennsylvania act on the same subjec was affirmed ; Powell v. Commonwealth, Pa. 265); a prohibition against laundries ex cept of brick or stone; ivithout the consent o the supervisors, because clearly intended fo discrimination against the Chinese ; Yick 'V. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 31 L. Ed. 220; a statute requiring every mem her of a firm of plumbers to be a registere( plumber, whether his duties require him to have knowledge of that trade or not, is at Unwarranted interference with liberty an property; Schnaier v. Importation Co., 182 N. Y. 83, 74 N. E. 561, 70 L. R. A. 722, 10£ Am. St. Rep. 790 ; State v. Smith, 42 Wash 237, 84 Pac. 851, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 674, and tote, 114 Am. St. Rep. 114, 7 Ann. Cas. 577 so is a statute forbidding women to work it a"factory before 6 a. m. or after 9 p. m.; Peo `pre v. Williams, 189 N. Y. 131, 81 N. E. 778