Arizona republican., 1915-11-14

I suit would be that those lawfully ad- i thority of the Gets of congress, in stead of enjoying in a~ substantial sense and ir their full scope the privileges conferred by the admission, would be segregated in such of the 1 states as chose to offer hospitality.
 It is insisted that the act should be supported because II is not a total deprivation of the right of the alien to labor; tLat is, the rastric- tIon Is limited to those businesses in which more than five workers are employed. and to the ratio fixed. It is emphasized that the employer in any line of business who employs more than five workers may em- ploy aliens to the extent of twenty per cent of his employees. But the fallacy of this argument at once appears If the state is at liberty to treat the employment of aliens as in itself peril requiring restraint regardless of kind or class of work 1t cannot be denied that the author ity exists to make it's measures to that end effective. Otis V. Parker, 1S1 |. $. soc. Silz V. Hesterburg, 211 L. $. 31; Purity Extract Co. Y. Lynch, 226 |. :. 192. If the re- striction to twenty per cent now inn posed is maintainable the state un- doubtedlv has the power if it sees fit to make the percentage less. We have nothing before us to justify the limitation to twenty per cent save the judgment expressed in the enactment, and if that is sufficient, is Tfffica4ft 4n prehension and conviction thus evi- denced would net be sufficient were the restriction extended so as to per init only ten per cent of the en- pioyes to be aliens or even a less percentage, or where it made ap- plicabie to all businesses in which more than three workers were em- ploycd instead of applying to those employing more than five We have frequently said that the legislature may recognize degrees of evil and adapt it's legislation accordingly est. 1 Louis Consolidated Coal CO. v Illi- nois, 1S5 J. $. 203. POT; Mclean '. Arkansas, 211 U. $. 539, 551 Miller Y. Wilson, 256 C. $. 373, 3SD: but underlying the classification is the 1 authority to deal with that at which 1 the legislation is aimed. The restrc- l tion now sought to be sustained is 1 such as to suggest no limit to the l states power of excluding aliens from | employment if the principle underly- 1 ing the prohibition of the act is con | ceded. No special public interest | with respect to any particular busi- ness is shown that could possibly i be deemed to support the enactment | for as we have said it relates to | every sort The discrimination is l against aliens as such in competition | with citizens in the described range | of enterprises and in our opinion it 1 clearly falls under the condemnation F of the fundamental law.
 The question of rights under treat ies was not expressly presented by | the bill. and although mentioned in | the argument, does not require at tention in vieW of the ihvalidity of | the act under the fourteenth amend ment Order affirmed
 Mir Justice McReynolds, dissenting.
 am unable to agree with the opinion of the majority of the court. It seems to me plain that this is suit against a state to which the eleventh amendment declares '1le judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend" I7itts V. McGhee. 172 l.. $. 516. If | Ex Parte Young, 209 T.. $. 12S, and the cases following it support the doctrine that federal courts may en- join the enforcement of criminal statutes enacted by state legislatures whenever the enjoyment of some con right happens to be threatened with temporary interrup- tion.. they should be overruled in that regard. The simple, direct language