The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-01


 his privileges, ana immunities. are also under the protection of the amendment. Further analysis will show that the law
 we have now arrived at poin. where 1t were well enough to make a more critical analysis of the amend. ment yndsr disca;sioon; on Iss language lang ee naturalissd in the United states: and subject tS ths a5s ahs shaii make or enforce any law. which nities. of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person sa process of law; nor deny to any person within its Jurisdiction the equal pro- tection of its laws. ratura1ized,' in the United States, and subject to their Jurisdiction. In addi- States citizenship. its further meaning of United states vs. Wong Kim Ark,
 fit was there held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, who at the time of his birth were sub- or fns abS dence in the United States, and are there carrying on business. and are not employed In any diplomatic. or official capacity. under the Emperor of China, became at the time of his birth a cit izen of the United States. Under this holding. although persons of the Mon to naturalization under our laws. if they should be permanently domiciled here. their children born within our Jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and of the State where they re- side. and this is true also of the Ma
 'Under this rule it would seem to opments of this amendment. that when ever and wherever territory may be acquired by our government. and Is by the national lesiglature incorporated that all persons born therin of par ents of whatever race they may be. are citizens of the United States. pro- in the diplomatic service, of. or act foreign government, or temporarily sseond mn the tsird and es of the amendment are to the effect that: No State shall make or enforce any law. which shall abridge the priv
 Nor shsil any State deprive any person of life. liberty, or property, ".HS "Sor deny @ to any person within its 1urisdiction. the equal protection of the laws
 Railroad Tax Cases.
 "As a step in the process of judicial ported ported 'R in IS IS Fed. Rep. ss5. may De considered as of great value He said:
 Al history shows that a partic- viduai or a class from defective or oppressive law, or the absence of any law touching the matter, is often the ana eauses Ter general in their character. designed to cover cases not merely of the same. but all cases of a similar nature; The wrongs which were supposed to be in- flicted upon, or threatened to, citizens Of the enfranchised race by special leg islation, directed against them. moved in the fundamental law of the nation of those citizens, but to insure to all dne %ee' process Ss a, of % law and the equal pro: lection of the laws. Oppression of the person and spoliation of property bv any state were thus forbidden. ana all. With the adoption of the amend ment the powers of the State to op- press any one under any pretensse or a m their Jurisdiction could claim equal protection under the laws. And by equal protection is meant equal secur- in his right to life, to liberty. to property and to, the pursuit of hap. mess. It implies not only that for such security shall be equal ly accessible to him. but that no one shall be subject to any greater burdens. or charges. than such & as are are e%Dsssncep imDsssa spon a This HAp every one everywhere. whatever be his position in society, or his associatlon ment, mtln ' or pleasure. It does not leave him because of any social or official po- sition which he may hold, nor because he may belong to p0,ithrcai 0r ha a pOey; @ember CT of a commexoial. manufacturing. or Transportation company. IS tne shield which the arm of our blessed every one, man, woman and child, in all Its broad domain. wherever they may go. and in whatever relations they may be placed. No State-such IS the sovereign command of the whole peoi, ole of the United States-no State snail touch the life. the liberty or property or or exalted his station, without due process of law; and no State, even with due process of law, shall deny to any one within It's turlsdlG,tion the eauai
 Tn that case the railroads insisted that in taxing their property the state of California discriminated dssar,ve asarn them of their property without due process of law, and was denying 10 them the equal protection of the laws. contrary to the n,arr.inntaone fSurseen.n a''eN''
 What Is meant by the clause. tha. no State shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. Is vel eral Supreme Court in the case of 4ick Wo vs Hopkins I1S U. s. 356.)
 'In that case. the city or san Fran the regulation of laundries. the effect ct of which was to discriminate in Gruei and vicious manner against hiaess Ghimese laundrymen. Certain Chinese, sup1ects that city, including the plaintiff Tn this case, attacked this ordinance as being void under the fourteenth amenonent, because 1t denied to them the equal
 The Supreme Court in it's opinion pronouncing this ordinance void, used the following language: .t,+io
 deemed by the law. or. by the public officers charged with Its adminls'raee tion necessary for the son prS6recI,pn Sre op Q, precaution against Injury to the pub lie health. No reason whatever except the will of tn esupervisors IS assigned. why they should not be permitted 10 carry on In the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood visors is withheld from them and from 200 others who have also petitioned. all of whom happen to be Shinese sup jects, eighty others not Chinese sun same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination Is ad- mitted No reason for it is shown;