Itep. 226; providing that a failure to per form any condition of an insurance policy shall not be a valid defence of an action un less such condition is printed in type as large as or larger than that known as long primer, or is written with pen and ink in or on the policy ; Dupuy v. Ins. Co., 63 Fed. 680; restricting insurance business to corpo rations; Cora. v. Vrooman, 164 Pa. 306, 30 Ati. 217, 25 L. R. A. 250, 44 Am. St. Rep. 603 ; prohibiting foreign insurance companies ftom carrying on business within its limits; Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 15 Sup. Ck. 207, 39 L. Ed. 297; but see Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832, where a provision in a statute forbidding the insurance of property within the state in a foreign insurance company which has not complied with the laws of such state was held a violation of the right of the individual to contract; the contract hairing been made in another state; prohibit ing' citizens from selling intoxicating liquors ; State v. Aiken, 42 S. C. 222, 20 S. E. 221, 26 L. R. A. 345; or forbidding the selling or giving of intoxicating liquors to Indians; People v. Bray, 105 Cal. 344, 38 Pac. 731, 27 L. R. A. 158 ; or a prohibition act; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205; or the 'prohibition against, op tions to buy or sell grain or other commodi ties at a future time;. Booth v. Illinois, 184 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425; 46 L. Ed. 623; or compelling railroads crossing each other to pnt in switch connections; Wisconsin, M. & P.'n. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. 115, 45 L. Ed. 194; or contracts which oper ate directly and substantially to restrain interstate commerce; Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197, 24 Sup. Ct. 436; 48 L. Ed. 679; or prohibiting a contract from being made in advance, waiving the right to payment in what the law provides shall be the medium of payment ; Hancock v. Yaden, 121 Ind. 366, 23 N. E. 253, 6 L. R. A. 576, 16 Am. St. Rep. 396; or regulating the prac tice of pharmacy and the sale of drugs; State v. Kumpfert, 115 La. 950, 40 South. 365; or restricting the power of corporations to contract within certain limits; Yazoo & M.
V. R. Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 37 South. 939, 68 L. R. A. 750; or providing that a con veyance securing a usurious debt shall be In valid; Adler & Sons Clothing Co. v. Cori, 155 Mo. 149, 55 S. W.1017; or requiring specified corporations to appoint the state auditor as attorney to accept service of process and notice ; State v. Petroleum Co., 58 W. Va. 108, 51 S. E. 865, 1 L. R.-A. (N. S.) 558, 112 Am. St. Rep. 951, 6 Ann. Cas. 38 ; or making it a criminal offence for a secondhand deal er to buy or receive stolen materials belong ing to railroads, telephone and electric light companies without diligent inquiry; Rosen thal v. New York, 226 U. S. 260, 33 Sup. Ct. 27, 57 L. Ed. 212; or tequiring railroads to sell passenger tickets of a connecting carri er at a rate prescribed by the railroad com mission; Stephens v. R Co., 138 Ga. 625, 75 S. E. 1041, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 541, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 609; or abolishing the fellow servant rule and those of assumption of risk and contributory negligence; Sutton v. Work meister, 164 Ill. App. 105.
Making it a misdemeanor for an attorney to receive more than a specified amount for prosecuting a claim for a pension is valid, as a pension is a bounty over which congress has control ; Frisbie v. U. S., 157 U. S. 160, 15 Sup, Ct. 586, 39 L. Ed. 657.
Contracts of employment. Much of the legislation which has been questioned as'in terfeting with the liberty of contract secur ed under the fourteenth amendment, is In relation to the acts passed which aim to benefit the laborer in his relations to his em ployer. Although lacking the powers vested
in the courts in this country to declare an act unconstitutional, yet the principle on which much of this class of legislation on the liberty of contract rests in the United States is clearly stated by an English court: "When two Classes of persons are dealing together and one class is, generally speaking, weaker than the other, and liable to oppression ei ther from natural or incidental causes, the law should as far as possible redress the in equality, by protecting the weak against the strong." 2 B. & S. 66. Obviously, the inten tion of the legislature in passing this class of acts was to protect the employes against fraud and oppression on the part of employ ers, but the objection to statutes prescribing a limitation upon hours of labor and regulat ing the mode of payment for it are (1) that they interfere with the right secured to every, citizen of acquiring and possessing property with the right to pursue happi neasi they are in conflict with that clauSe of the bill of rights which declares that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; 27 Am.'L. Rev. 857.
Congress does not have power to make it Criminal offence for a carrier engaged in interstate commerce, or an agent or officer thetent 'to discharge an employee simply cause of his in a labor zation; and the provisions to that effect in section 10 of the act of June 1, 1898, ing interstate carriers, is an invasion of liberty, as well as the right of ty guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States, and is therefore unenforceable as repugnant to the declaration of the fourteenth amendment that no person shall be deprived of life, lib erty or property without due process of law ; Adair v. U. S., 208 U. S. 161, 28 Sup. Ct. 277. 52 L. Ed. 436, 13 Ann. Cas. 764. In many cases the restriction by statute of contracts between employers and employs is held unconstitutional ; Leep v. Ry. Co., 58 Ark. 407, 25 S. W. 75, 23 L. R. A. 264, 41 Am. St. Rep. 109 ; Globe Pub. Co. v. Bank, 41 Neb. 187, 59 N. W. 683, 27 L. R. A. 854; Wheeling Bridge & T. R. Co. v. Gilmore, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 658; In re Eight-Hour Law Bill, 21 Colo. 29, 39 Pac. 328; State v. Loom is, 115 Mo. 307, 22 S. W. 350, 21 L. R. A. 789; Waters v. Wolf, 162 Pa. 153, 29 Atl. 646, 42 Am. St. Rep. 815; and the liberty to enter into contracts by which labor may be em ployed in such way as the laborer may deem most beneficial and to others to employ such labor is held to be necessarily included in the constitutional guaranty of the right to property ; Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 66, 35 N. E. 62, 22 L. R. A. 340, 37 Am. St. Rep. 206, where an act prescribed that wages be paid weekly. But in Massachu setts a statute requiring manufacturers to pay the wages of their employs weekly is held within the power of the legislature, as the constitution of that state extends legis lative power to "all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinanc es," and does not, in terms, make any pro visions as to liberty of contract ; Opinion of the Justices, 163 Mass. 589, 40 N. E. 713, 28 L R. A. 344 ; so in Rhode Island a weekly payment law ; State v. Mfg. Co., 18 R. I. 16, 25 Atl. 246, 17 L. R. A. 856 ; and in Indiana a bi-weekly payment law, were held constitu tional; Hancock v. Yaden, 121 Ind. 366, 23 N. E. 253, 6 L. R. A. 576, 16 Am. St. Rep. 396.