The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-06-20
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
WILDER, J,

district magistrate of Honolulu convict
| ing him of practicing veterinary medi-
| cine without license in a town and
suburbs of over 5000 inhabitants con
trary to Act 40 of the Laws of 1905,
He claims that the act is unconstitu-
| tional in that it violates section l of
the 14th amendment to the Constitution
| by discriminating against persons en-
gagged in the same business or profess
sion and denying to them the equal pro-
| lection of the laws.
In the discussion of this question it is
only necessary to quote Secs. l, 4 and 6
of the act, which are as follows:
''Section /. No person shall practice
veterinary medicine, surgery or den
tistry, as a profession, in any town and
suburbs with a population of over 5000
| inhabitants in the Territory of Hawaii,
either gratuitously or for pay, or shall
| offer to so practice, or shall advertise
or announce himself publicly or private
| ly as prepared or qualified to so prac-
| tice without having first obtained from
| the Treasurer under the seal of his De-
partment, a license in form and style
substantially as in this Chapter set
| forth.
"Provided, however, that nothing in
| this Act shall be construed to prevent
the medical, surgical or dental treat
| ment of stock by the owners or the en-
ployees of owners or by neighbors who
| do not assume to be practitioners of
veterinary medicine, surgery or dem
tistry or by members of the medical
profession in cases of emergency, and
"Provided further, that this Act
shall not apply to commissioned Veter-
mary Surgeons of the United States
Army.
"Section f. No applicant for Ii
cense to practice veterinary medicine,
surgery and dentistry, shall be exam
| ined unless he shall have paid to the
Treasurer fee of Ten $4,000 Dollars.
"Section 6. Any person who shall
practice veterinary medicine, surgery
town and suburbs with a population of
over 5000 inhabitants in the Territory
of Hawaii, or who shall offer or attempt
to so practice, or shall advertise or an
nounce himself, either publicly or pri-
vately, as prepared or qualified to so
practice, contrary to the provisions of
Section l of this Act, or whose license
to so practice shall have been revoked
misdemeanor, and shall be liable, on
conviction, to a fine of not more than
Two Hundred and Fifty ($250) Dol
lars''
That the legislature may regulate the
practice of veterinary medicine by re-
quiring licenses of those who desire and
are found qualified to engage in it and
prohibiting the practice without such
10 ,1oiv
classify such persons. so long as it is
done fairly and reasonably, are PROPOSE
tions which are conceded by the defend
ant But it is insisted that this act
cannot stand because it establishes an
unreasonable and purely arbitrary dis
elimination in prohibiting the defend
ant from practicing unless he procures
license and allowing others to practice
without any license.
In Barber V. Connolly, 113 US. 81, 81,
it was said: 1.-THE Fourteenth Amend
ment, in declaring that no State shall
deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its juris-
diction the equal protection of the
laws, undoubtedly intended not only
that there shall be no arbitrary de-
spoliation of property, but that equal
protection and security should be given
to all under like circumstances in the
enjoyment of their personal and civil
rights; that all persons should, be
equally entitled to pursue their happi-
ness and acquire and enjoy property;
that they should have like access to the
courts of the country for the protection
nd
vention and redress of wrongs, and the
enforcement Of contracts; that no i'm
pediment should be interposed to the
pursuits of any one except as applied
to the same pursuits by others under
like circumstances; that no greater bur
dens should be laid upon one than are
laid upon others in the same calling and
condition, and that in the administra-
tion of criminal justice no different or
higher punishment should be imposed |
upon one than such as is prescribed to
all for like offences. But neither the |
amendment-brOad and comprehensive |
as 1t is-nor any other amendment, was
designed to interfere with the power of |
the State, sometimes termed its police |
power, to prescribe regulations to pro
mote the health, peace, morals, educa- |
ton and good order of the people. and |
to legislate so as to increase the indus
tries of the state, develop its resources
and add to its wealth and prosperity.
From the very necessities of society,
legislation of a special character, hav-
ing these objects in view, must often he
had in certain districts, such as for
draining marshes and irrigating arid
plains. Special burdens are often neces-
sary for general benefts-for supplying
water, preventing fires, lighting dis
tricts, cleaning streets, opening parks,
and many other objects Regulations
for these purposes may press with more
or less weight upon one than upon an
other, but they are designed, not to i'm
pose unequal or unnecessary restrictions
upon any one, hut to promote, with as
little individual inconvenience as pos
sible, the general good. Though. in
many respects, necessarily special in
their character, they do not furnish Just
ground of complaint if they operate
alike upon all person and property I'M
der the same circumstances and condi-
TONS Class legislation, discriminating