Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1911-05-15
Don't Miss this Opportunity.

VS.. United States, 1876 u. 8. 81, 81;
Oceanic Navigation Co. VS.. Stranahan,
ga U. S. 800, $40.
AS to the point that the statute Is In
conflict with the Interstate commerce
clause of the Constitutions: The case
of Williams VS.. Fears effectually dis
poses of this contention. The Supreme
Court there pointed out the distinction
between interstate commerce and the
mere incidents which may attend the
carrying on of such commerce. and
said, THE imposition of this tax falls
within the distinction stated. These
labor contracts were not in themselves
subjects of traffic between the States,
nor was the business of hiring laborers
so Immediately connected with inter.
state transportation or Interstate traf-
fc that il could be correctly said that
those who followed It were engaged in
interstate commerce, or that the tax on
that occupation constituted a burden
on such commerce" (179 u. S. 27S).
As to the points that, for the rea-
sons urged as above stated, the stat.
ute conflicts with the Fifth and Four
teenth Amendments of the Constitu-
ton. That there Is sound ground for
discriminating between the business of
soliciting and hiring laborers to leave
the Territory. and to work In the Ter
ritory, was pointed out in the case of
State VS.. Napier where the court said,
"Nor is the statute discriminating In
any unlawful sense, by requiring a H.
cense for such business when the la
Dor Is to be performed out of the state,
and not requiring a license when the
labor Is to be performed within the
state. The business which seeks to
induce laborers to leave the state and
the business which promotes the EN-
ployment of laborers within the state
are so different In their tendencies for
good or evil to general interest as to
Justify different classification and
treatment with respect to them" al s.
e. l6). In Williams VS.. Fears the
court said, "The point is chiefly rested
on the ground that inasmuch as the
business of hiring persons to labor
within the State is not subjected to Il
like tax, the equal protection OF the
laws secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment is thereby denied. =.
We are unable to say that such dis
elimination, II II existed, did not rest
on reasonable grounds, and was not
within the discretion of the state legls-
lature" (l79 u. S. G75, 67G)
In Louisville etc, II. Co VS.. Melton,
2lS u. s. 30, 80, the court said, AS the
power to classify is not taken away by
the operation Of the equal protection
Of the law clause, a wide scope of leg
islatiye discretion may be eXerted In
classifying without conflicting with the
constitutional prohibition" And In
Heath a. Millgan Go, W.. Worst, 207
y, s, 1888, 800, II was said that, "Legis.
lation which regulates business may
well make distinctions depend on the
degrees Of evil"
Section, lilSo, Of the Revised Laws
provides that Every person, firm or
corporation conducting an employment
or Intelligence office on ADVERTISING as
an employment or intelligence agent
shall pay an annual license lne nj
twenty-five dollars" Petitioners cOuu.
sol assume that holders of lirousos h.
sued uudor that section 'arr legally
authorized in carry on thr sumo husl.
meas us mat drllurd uudur Boz ! ~