The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-06-20

I
the amendment
In Gulf, ETC., Railway V. lis, 165 {.
5. $50, l65, it was said:
1t is apparent that the mere fact of
classification is not sufficient to relieve
a statute from the reach of the equality
| clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
and that in all cases it must appear lot
! only that classification has been made,
but also that it is one based upon some
reasonable ground-some difference
which bears a just and proper relation
to the attempted classifcation-and is
not mere arbitrary selection. -
| In Orient Insurance Co. V. Daggs, 172
Z. S. 557, 562, it was said:
at is not necessary to state the rea-
soning upon which classification by leg
islation is based or justified. This court
has had many occasions to do so, and
| only lately reviewed the subject in Ma
| goun V. Illinois Trust and Savings
Bank, 40 U. S. 2S3. We said in that
case that 'the State may distinguish,
select and classify objects of legislation,
and necessarily the power must have a
wide range of discretion And this be-
cause of the function of legislation and
| the purposes to which it is addressed.
| Classification for such purposes is not
invalid because not depending on scien-
tific or marked differences in things or
persons or in their relations. It suffices
| if it is practical, and is not renewable
unless palpably arbitrary"
"But while recognizing to the full
extent the impossibility of an imposi-
tion of duties and obligations mathe-
matically equal upon all, and also rec
ognizing the right of classification of
| industries and occupations, we must
nevertheless always remember that the
| equal protection of the laws is guaran-
| teed, and that such equal protection is
| denied when upon one of two parties
| engaged in the same kind of business
and under the same conditions burdens
are cast which are not east upon the
other' Getting V. Kansas City Stock
Yards CO., 1873 U. S. 10, I'll.
"But a statute would not be consti-
! tutional which should prescribe class
or party for opinion s sake or which
should select particular individuals
| from class or locality, and subject
them to peculiar rules, or impose upon
them special obligations or burdens
| from which others in the same locality
or class are exempted. Cooley Const.
| Linn. 4S1.
These quotations contain general
| principles which are well understood
and have been frequently approved. The
usual difficulty is in the application of
| these rules to particular statutes. That
| legislation which is limited either in the
| objects to which it is directed or by the
| territory within which it is to operate
is not prohibited is but another way of
saying that classification is allowable if
based upon some reasonable ground. But
| it must be remembered that differences
which would serve for a classification
for some purposes do not because of
that fact furnish reason for classl-
fication for all legislative purposes. The
differences which will support class leg
islation must be such as in the nature of
things furnish a reasonable basis for
separate laws and regulations. The leg
| islature cannot adopt an arbitrary
classification, for it must be based on
some reason suggested by such diff
ference in the situation and circum-
stances of the subjects placed in differ
ent classes as to disclose the necessity
of different legislation in respect there
to. Amy law based upon such a CLASH
ication must embrace all and exclude
none whose condition and wants render
such legislation necessary or appropri-
ate to them as a class.
Coming to the act in question, we see
that it prohibits the practice of veterin-
airy medicine without d license in towns
of over 5000 inhabitants, which is made
criminal. The license only issues to an
applicant after he has been examined
and found to be possessed of the neces-
sary qualifications. and for the privilege
of taking this examination he must pay
to the government fee of $40 whether
he gets his license or not. In all other
towns and places in the Territory any
one, whether possessed of the necessary
qualifications or not, may practice with
out license. So far as we are aware,
the towns of Honolulu and Hilo are the
only ones having population of over
FIVE thousand The act in short, then,
prohibits the practice of veterinary
medicine without license in Honolulu
and Hilo and makes no provision for
any other locality or part of the Terri
tory.
This statute deals with one class of
persons. namely, veterinaries; of whom
some are and some are not required to
be licensed and their practice regulated,
depending upon whether they practice
a. in Honolulu or Hilo, or (2) else
where in the Territory. 1t is difficult to
perceive any reason for this classified
ton. 1t requires no more skill, expert |
ence and integrity to be a veterinary
in a town of six thousand inhabitants
than in one of four thousand or one
thousand or any less number. This dis
elimination seems to be an arbitrary |
one, permitting some and forbidding |
others to carry on the same business
without regard to their competency or
to any material difference in their stu |
alton. For the right to carry on his |
calling one is not, while another, who
may be his equal or superior in learn |
ing. experience and ability, is required |
to procure license and pay fee of |
so therefor. It does not appear that
this classification is based upon any rea-
sonable ground which bears a proper or
any relation to the subject matter Of
the act. and it looks like an arbitrary
selection. 1t may be suggested that the
people in towns of over five thousand
in h . bi+autS are more in need of Drotec-