Arizona republican., 1915-11-14

1 The question: then, IS whether the
 act assailed is repugnant to the four
 teenth amendment. Upon the allega-
 tions of the bill, it must be assumed
 that the complainant a native of Aus
 tria, has been admitted to the United
 States under the federal law. He was
 thus admitted with the privilege of
 entering and abiding in the United States. and hence of entering and
 abiding in any state in the Union ! (See Gegiow vs Uhl, Commissioner
 decided October 25, 1915) Being law fully an inhabitant of Arizona, the complainant is entitled under the fourteenth amendment, to the equal
 protection of it's laws The description
 any person within it's Jurisdiction" {, as it has frequently been held, in ' cludes aliens. These provisions said
 the court in Yick Wo vs. Hopkins,
 11S L. $. 35G, 369 (referring to the due l process and equal protection clauses
 of the amendmenD, "are universal in their application, to all persons within ! the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race Of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws See also Wong Wing vG. United States, 16S U. S. 22S,242; United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. $. 649, 695. The discrimination defined by the act does not pertain to
 the regulation or distribution of the public domain, or of the common property or resources of the people
 of the state. the enjoyment of which
 may be limited to it's citizens as
 against both aliens and the citizens
 of other states. Thus in MCCready
 vs. Virginia, 94, L. $. 391, 396, the
 restriction to the citizens of Virginia
 of the right to plant oysters in one
 of it's rivers was sustained upon the
 ground that the regulations related
 to the common property of the
 citizens of the state, and an an aloggous principle was involved in
 Patsone vs. Pennsylvania, 232 U. $. 1Ss, 145, 146. where the discrimin- ation against aliens upheld by the court had for its object the protec
 tion of wild game within the states with respect to which it was said that the state could exercise it's pre- serving power for the benefit of it's own citizens if it pleased. The case now presented is not within these decisions. or within those relating to
 
 CHauenstein vs. Lynham, 100 U. S 4S3; Blythe vs. Hinckley, 1S0 U. $. 333, 341, 342); and it should be ad- ded that the act is not limited to persons who are engaged on public work or receive the benefit of puD- lie moneys. The discrimination here involved is imposed upon the con duct Of ordinary private enterprises.
 The act, it will be observed, pro- vides that every employer (Whether corporation, partnership, or individu- all who employs more than five workers at any one time regardless of kind or class of work or sex of workers shall emplay not less than eighty per cent qualified electors or native born citizens of the United | States or some sub division thereof l It thus covers the entire field nf l industry with the exception of en- terprises that are relatively very | small. Its application in the present | case is to employment in a restaur- l ant, the business of which requires | nine employees. The purpose of an act must be found in it's natural | operation and effect CHenderson vs. | Mayer, 92 U. s. 259, 26S: Bailey vs. Alabama, 219, U. s. 219. 244). and the | purpose of this act is not only plain ly shown by its provisions, but it is frankly revealed in its title. It i is there described as An act to pro- tect the citizens of the United States 1 in their employment against noE citizens of the United States, in Ari- Zona.' As the appellants rightly say. there has been no subterfuge. It is an act aimed at the employment of aliens. as such. in the businesses de- scribed. Liberally, it's terms might be taken to include with aliens those naturalized citizens who by reason of change of residence might not be at the time qualified electors in any subdivision of the United States, but we are dealing with the. main pur- pose of the statute, definitely stated in the execution of Which the com Plainant is to be forced out of his as a cook in a restau rant, simply because he is an alien.
 It is sought to justify this act as an exercise of the power of the state to make reasonable classifications in to promote the health, safety. morals and welfare of those within it's jurisdiction. But this ad- mitted authority, with the broad range or leSlSldIlNe ulSCreIlOn I1dI IL implies, does not go so far as to make it possible for the state to deny to lawful inhabitants because )f their race or nationality, the or linary means of earning a liveli- hood. It requires no argument to show that the right to work for lying in the common occupations of he community is of the very essence # the personal freedom and oppor unity that it was the purpose of the amendment to secure. If this could ,e refused solely upon the ground f race or nationality, the prohibi ion of the denial to any person of he equal protection of the laws would be a barren form of words. It s no answer to say, as it is argued, hat the act proceeds upon the as umption that the employment of liens unless restrained was a peril 0 the public welfare The discrim- nation against aliens in the wide ange of employments to which the ct relates is made an end in itself