"Exact wisdom and nice adaptation of rem edies are notrequired• by the XIVth Amend ment nor the crudeness nor the impolicy nor even the injustice of state laws redressed by it." Heath & Milligan Mfg.- Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338, 28 Sup. Ct. 114, 52 L. Ed. 236. Its prohibitions are not confined to state ac tion through the legislative, executive or ju dicial authority, but relate to all instru mentalities through which the state acts ; Raymond v. Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 28 Sup. Ct. 7, 52 L. Ed. 78, 12 Ann. Cas. 757.
In an action properly instituted against a state officer, the Xlth Amendment is not a barrier to a judicial inquiry whether the XIVth Amendment has been disregarded by state enactments ; the constitution and the amendments are one instrument ; Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537, 23 Sup. Ct. 398, 47 L. Ed. 584 (a bill for an injunction to test the validity of a Nebraska act regulating rail roads and the defense was set up that it was in effect a suit against the state).
The constitutional guaranty of a republican form of government to each of the states, however, must be enforced by the political department of the government and cannot be availed of in connection with the XIVth Amendment to obtain a revision by the su preme court of the judgment of the highest court of the state in the case of a contested election of governor and lieutenant governor ; Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548, 20 Sup. Ct. 890, 1009, 44 L. Ed. 1187.
A state is not prohibited by the XIVth Amendment from prescribing the jurisdiction of the several courts, either as to their ter ritorial limits, or the subject matter, amount, or penalties of their respective judgments ; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 25 L. Ed. 989.
The mere fact that state legislation is un just or will result in hardship is not neces sarily fatal to it ; Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 26 L. Ed. 238 ; Missouri P. Ry. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 520, 6 Sup. Ct. 110, 29 L. Ed. 463 ; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 566, 570, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. Ed. 269 ; nor will the federal courts determine the mere question of its expedi ency ; Mobile County v. Kimball, .102 U. S. 691, 704, 26 L. Ed. 238. The sole question to be considered is that of power and not of wisdom ; Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 506, 514, 19 L. Ed. 264 ; Doyle v. Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535, 541, 24 L. Ed. 148 ; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, 710, 5 Sup. Ct. 730, 28 L. Ed. 1145 ; Missouri P. Ry, Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 520, Sup. Ct. 110, 29 L. Ed. 463 ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205 ; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 204, 8 Sup. Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 ; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 319. 10 Sup. Ct. 862, 34 L. Ed. 455 ; Angle v. R. Co., 151 U. S. 1, 18,'14 Sup. Ct. 240, 38 L. Ed. 55.
As in the Slaughter-House Cases, a differ ence of opinion as to the scope of the amend ment was emphasized by a division of the court into five and four ; its purpose and scope was, in the, later ease of Barbier v. Con
nolly, declared by Mr. Justice Field, without dissent, in terms having no relation to the race question which had furnished the im mediate occasion for its adoption. It was there said that the prohibitions upon state action in the last two clauses of section 1 were undoubtedly intended to prevent the "arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty or arbitrary spoliation of property" ; to secure "equal protection and security" under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their per sonal and civil rights, "the right" to "pursue happiness and acquire and enjoy property," like access to the courts "for protection of persons and property, the prevention and re dress of wrongs, and the enforcement of con tracts" ; that all should be alike exempt from any special impediment to pursuits, or un usual burdens or different punishment. But neither this nor any other amendment was designed to interfere with the police power Of the state "to prescribe regulations to pro mote the health, peace, morals, education and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the state, de velop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity." Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 31, 5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed. 923; Butchers' Union Slaughter-House & Live Stock Land ing Co. v. Slaughter-House Co., 111 U. S. 746, 4 Sup. Ct. 652, 28 L. Ed. 585 ; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 25 Sup. Ct. 18, 49 L. Ed. 169.
In construing the amendment the supreme court has generally refrained from attempt ing to define the scope of its various provi sions except so far as required for the deci sion of, the case in hand, and has adopted by preference the "gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion, as the cases present ed for decision shall require, with the rea soning on which such decisions may be found ed." Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 104, 24 L. Ed. 616; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780.
Though securing to the African race the rights of citizenship, it has been doubted whether this amendment adds to those the guaranties contained in the state constitu tions any protection to individual rights. It does, however, by making a principle of state constitutional law a part of the United States constitution, make the United States supreme court the final arbiter of alleged violations of those rights; Cooley, Const. Lim. (4th ed.) 361. An accused person cannot of right de mand a mixed jury, some of which shall be of his race, nor 'is a jury of that kind guar anteed by the XIVth Amendment to any race ; Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316, 26 Sup. Ct. 338, 50.L. Ed. 497. The guaranty of per sonal rights in the amendment Is not confih ed to citizens, but secures them to every per son within the jurisdiction of a state ; Fras er v. McConway & Torley Co., 82 Fed. 257 ; Steed v. Harvey, 18 Utah 367, 54 Pac. 1011. 72 Am-St. Rep.. 789.