In Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 14 Sup. Ct. 874, 38 L. Ed. 812, it was held that a state statute prohibiting the carrying of dan gerous weapons does not abridge the privi leges and immunities of citizens of the Unit ed States as defined in the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35, 18 L. Ed. 745; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall.
(U. S.) 163, 20 L. Ed: 260; and to the• same effect is State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, 14 S. E. 9, 14 L. R. A. 600.
Among-statutes which have been held not to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens are : Requiring that every child at tending school shall be vaccinated ; Bissell v. Davison, 65 Conia. 183, 32 All. 348, 29 L. R. A. 251; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 Sup. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765; that policies of insurance shall not be issued without securing a charter of in corporation; Com. v. Vrooman, 164 Pa. 306, 30 Atl. 217, 25 L. R. A. 250, 44 Am. St. Rep. 603; that -cottractors shall accept no more than eight hours' work in twenty-four except in cases of necessity; People v. Warren, 77 Hun 120, 28 N. Y. Supp. 303; that every per son before registration for election must be able to read and write ; Stone v. Smith, 159 Mass. 413, 34 N. E. 521; that one who sells patents shall file an authenticated copy of the letters patent and an affidavit that such letters are genuine; Reeves v. Corning, 51 Fed. 774 (distinguishing Castle v. Hutchin son, 25 Fed. 394) ; that women shall not be employed in saloons, theatres, etc., where liq uor is sold; In re Considine, 83 Fed. 157 ; that minors shall not remain therein ; People v. Japinga, 115 Mich. 222, 73 N. W. 111; pro hibiting plumbers from exercising their call ing without a certificate from a board of ex aminers; People v. Warden of City Prison, 81 Hun 434, 30 N. Y. Supp. 1095; requiring
that the seller of fertilizers shall take out a license; American Fertilizing Go. v. Board -iculture, 43 Fed. 609, 11 L. R. A. 179; Ind Thafr. ,gat ee..ag on the banking business he ,UnitectZ with the provisions of an act re lating thereto ; State v. Scougal, 3 S. D. 55, 51 N. W. 858, 15 L. R. A. 477, 44 Am. St. Rep. 756; regulating the right to practise medicine ; Brooks v. State, 88 Ala. 122, 6 South. 902; State v. Green, 112 Ind. 462, 14 N. E. 352 ; dentistry ; Gosnell v. State, 52 Ark. 228, 12 S. W. 392; State v. Creditor, 44 Kan. 565, 24 Pac. 346, 21 Am. St. Rep. 306 (but such regulation cannot discriminate against citizens of other states ; State v. Hinman, 65 N. H. 103, 18 Atl. 194, 23 Am. St. Rep. 22); suppressing a nuisance; In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623 ; regulating or pro hibiting the sale of liquor within a state. See LIQUOR LAWS..
Refusal to any person of the accommo dations of any public conveyance or place of amusement; IL S. v. Stanley, 109 U. S. 3, 3 Sup. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835; refusing to allow colored children to attend the pub lic schools ; Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 546, 15 S. W. 765, 11 L. .R. A. 828, 23 Am. St. Rep. 895 (but see State v. Duffy, 7 Nev. 342, 8 Am. Rep. 713) ; excluding persons of color not taxed, in an enumeration of in habitants for the purpose of reorganizing a senatorial district; People v. Board of Sup'rs, 19 N. Y. Supp. 978; the establish ment of separate schools for white and color ed children; McMillan v. School Committee, 107 N. C. 609, 12 S. E. 330, 10 L. R. A. 823; do not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens; nor does a statute prohibiting the intermarriage of white and colored per sons; State v. Reinhardt, 63 N. C. 547.
See CIVIL RIGHTS ; DUE PROCESS OF LAW ; PROTECTION OF THE LAW ; LIBERTY OF CON TRACT; SCHOOLS.