The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1916-09-15

tecnih Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States. TruaX was sub
sequcntly arrested for a violation OF the
Act and .hereupon. 10 prevent Ra1ch
discharge from employment the District
Court granted restraining order
against the county attorney preventing
enforcement of tho Act 21a Fed. 2I3.
An appeal was taken 10 the supreme
Court. Of the United States. and an opln-
ion rendered by Mr. Justice Hughes on
November |. 1915. c39 l. 5. 80. wherein
the Arizona statute was held contrary
To IN" Foul tenth Amendment TO the
Constitution Of the Gnied States. Upon
the question Of the invalidity OF the Act,
all thr Justices participating. concurrcd
Mr.. Justice Hughes dssentcd upon the
method If procedure only. justice
Hughes, in the opinion. page 80 said:
Questions at Issue.
The QUO stion then Is whether the
Act assaulted is rcpusnant to the
Fourteenth Amendment. Upon the
allegations OF the bill. 1t must be
assumed that tho complainant. d
native OF Austria, has been admit
ted with the privilege of entering
and abiding in tho United States.
and hence Of entering and abiding
in any State in the Union. (Sce
Gegiow V. Uhl. Commissioner, De-
cidcd Oct. IS, 1918, ante p. 81. Be
Ing lawfully an inhabitant of Arl;
ZunN the compl alntnant is entitled
unUtf inc rUuEltCHtH ''S''S
TO the equal protection OF It's laws.
The script ion-'any person within
it's mrlsdiclion'-aS it has frequent
~ been hclu. includes aliens.
Justice Hughes. further along IN the
opinion. states that IT was sought to
iustiFy the act as an exercise OF the
power Of the State TO make reasonable
classification in lcgislating to, promote
tho health safely, morals and welfare
of those within its Jurisdiction. out
hpl6 de bot iS
manner attempted 10 BE- made by inc
Arizona statute. and that the Legislative
discretion Of making rcasonble c!ass!-
iicatlrn fer the purposes aloresaln' Gocs
To any lawful inhabitant because OF his
race or nationality the ordinary means
of earning Il livelihood. Justice hughes
then says:
lit requires no argument 70 show
that thc right TO work for living
in the common occupations or The
community Is Of the very cssancc
OF the personal freedom and oppor.
tunity that it WAS the purpose o.
the Amendment TO secure.
IF this could be refused sole
" on the ground Of race or ma
,ionality. the prohibition OF the de-
nial 20 any person Of the equal pro
tcclon OF the laws would De a OAR.
rem form Of words.
In the conclusion reached by Justice
Hughes. all the other members OF the
court participating. citccl was elFcn
TO tho Fourteenth Amendment TO the
Constitution which amendment inc NJ
IONA statute In effect nuillfies. Mr.;
C;ompers would have that court u1hOiu
4 statute of n State with provisions a.
rcctly in cpntrnventlon 10 express Plo,
visions Of the Constitution OF the united
states. regardless Of the rights guaran-
Icnd bv Tho constitution. The opinion
Of Justice Hughes is sustained and is
in conformity with q number OIL prior
decisions Of the Supreme Court OF INC
United states. The right OF tSate 10
CLASSIFY employmcnts and cxcludc from |
engaging in these employmcnts persons
mentioned in such cl1sslf1catlon' "heIe
such legislation is 10 promote inc nealtli'
safety, morals and welfare OF the peo-
pie within the JurisdiT!'3n 81 o. ne snn H,
Court of the United States. NO such
classification was made BY the Arizona
statute.
On November - 1915, decision was
rendered by the United States supreme
Court-Hcim V. Mccall. ?3s =. s. - IN
which Mr. Hughes participated, ana IN
which the right Of u State 70 MAKE the
classification mentlonea U Sos 1nhcI fd1 ;,
There WAS Il provision In the labor laws
Of the State al New York that only citl-
zcns Of the United States should DC en-
plnycd OH Public works, and that pre-.
ference should Dc given ~ S'ti@Sits
The State of New York. Helm prop
erly owrcr and tax payer OF the state
lied a Bill In equity 10 restrain the Pub
lie Service Commission for the FIRST
pislric; of the State Of New lork from
declaring certain contracts for the con.
srruction Of portions Of the subway
s s,r IrN Of the city OF New York void
and forfeited for violation Of that pro- |
vision of the statute. In the contracts
for the construction or Inc SUBWAY
Il, This nrDNiSi0O.
I'm obedience to the requirements
Of Section II of thr Labor Law II
is further provided that If tho pro
visions of said Section IA are NOT
complied with, this contract shall
he void"
The section referred TO tSectlon Ia
was the section Of the Labor Laws, con-
tanning the preference provision. Ater
action by the lower courts of Ne" YORK