Go S.E

19, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242 with note, 14 Ann. Cas. 1105; and a statute regulating railroad rates, in which the penalties for violation were so excessive and enormous as to deter and intimidate parties affected from testing its validity in the courts; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 1164.

— When a state, either through its legislature, courts, or administrative officers, excludes persons of the African race, solely because of race or color, from serving as grand jurors in the prosecution of a person of that race, the equal protection of the laws is denied him and a judgment of the state court, sustaining the conviction will be reversed; Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442, 20 Sup. Ct. 687, 44 L. Ed. 839; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 25 L. Ed. 664; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 567; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 5G5, 16 Sup. Ct. 905, 40 L. Ed. 1075; but statutes prescribing counsel fees have been in some distinguishing cases upheld, as in the case of wrongfully discharged railroad employees; St. Louis. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Paul, 173 U. S. 409, 19 Sup. Ct. 419, 43 L. Ed. 746;

— or statutes against railroad companies for damage by fire from locomotives; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 19 Sup. Ct. 609, 43 L. Ed. 909; and a law requiring monthly payment of corporation employees; Skinner v. Min. Co., 96 Fed. 743;

— or compelling railroad companies to pay employees at the time of discharge; St Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Paul, 64 Ark. 83, 40 S. W. 705, 37 L. R. A. 504, 62 Am. St. Rep. 154;

— or to furnish free return transportation to shippers of live stock; George v. Ry. Co., 214 Mo. 551, 113 S. W. 1099, 127 Am. St Rep. 690; an act punishing any one who by threats or extortion obtains money from citizens or residents of a state; Greene v. State, 83 Neb. 84, 119 N. W. 6, 131 Am. St Rep. 626; making it a misdemeanor to admit a child under sixteen to theatres except entertainments on piers; In re Van Home. 74 N. J. Eq. 600, 70 Atl. 986; giving the owner of live stock accidentally killed or destroyed on a railroad track double its value; Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 29 Am. Rep. 356; one requiring owners and operators of coal mines to weigh coal in a certain specified manner; Millett v. People, 117 111.

294, 7 N. E. 631, 57 Am. Rep. 869.

Probably the most numerous cases requiring the construction of this guaranty have arisen under statutes establishing some classification of persons, property or occupations. The classification "must always rest upon some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect of such basis.... But arbitrary selection can never be justified by calling it Cli cation. The equal protection demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment forbids tins.... It is apparent that the mere fact of classification is not sufficient to relii statute from the reach of the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that in all cases it must appear not only that a 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 classification— and is not a mere arbitrary selection." Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666, quoted in Connolly v. Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 560, 22 Sup. Ct 431, 40 L. Ed. 070; Cotting v. Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79, 22 Sup. Ct. 30, 46 L. Ed. 92; Bachtel v. Wilson, 204 U. S. 41, 27 Sup. Ct. 24.",, 51 L, Ed. 357. "The equal protection of the laws which, by the E\>urteenth Amendment, no state can deny to the individual, forbids legislation, in whatever form it may be enacted, by which the property of an individual is, without compensation, wrested from him for the benefit of another or of the public." Cotting v. Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79, 87, 22 Sup. Ct 30, 46 L. Ed. 92 (quoting Reagan v. Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 399, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014), where it was held that a classification between stockyards doing a large business and those doing a small business was invalid. A" state may without violating the guaranty put into one class all engaged in business of a special and public character and require them to perform a duty which they can do better and more quickly than others, and impose a penalty for non-performance; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73, 28 Sup. Ct. 28, 52 L. Ed. 10S; where a penalty for the failure of a railroad to adjust and average claims within forty days was held constitutional. Mere direction of the state law that under given circumstances the venue shall be changed does not violate the equal protection of the laws; Cincinnati Street Ry. Co. v. Snell, 193 U. S. 30, 24 Sup. Ct 319, 48 L. Ed. 604: where it was said: "But it is clear that the Fourteenth Amendment in no way undertakes to control the power of a state to determine by what process legal rights may be asserted or legal obligations enforced, provided the method of procedure adopted for these purposes gives reasonable notice and affords a fair opportunity to be heard before the issues are decided." "It is fundamental rights which the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards and not the mere form which a state may see proper to designate for the enforcement and protection of such rights." The following statutes have been held to DistinguJ shing bet een street railways and steam railroads in Imposing a tax; £ nab, T. & I. of II. Ry. Co. V. Savannah, 198 U. S. 392, 25 Sup. 19 L, Ed. between life and health com] l lire, marine and inland insur < with respect to taxation; Fidelity Mut v. Mettler, 185 D. s.j, 44 L. Ed. 922; between bitumh and block coal mines as to working; I v. Indiana, 229 1. S. 26, 33 Sup. I L. Ed.; a distinction in inheritan laws between lineal and collateral Billings v. Illinois, 1S8 U. S. 97, 2 272. 47 L. Ed. 400; as also the ex step-children from the collateral inheritance tax on bequests and devises from step-parents; Com. v. Randall, -J-'.", Pa. 197, 7:: AtL 1109; the exemption in a medical ref tion act of those who had practiced before a certain date or gratuitously or in a hospital; Watson v. Maryland, 218 I".

S. 17."-.

30 Sup. Ct. 644, 54 L. Ed. 987; between individuals and corporations, the classification between the two being approved because of the difference of the power which the state may exercise over the doing of business within its borders by an individual on the one band or a corporation on the other: Ham Packing Co. v. Arkansas.

212 D. S. 322, 20 Sup. Ct. 370, 53 L. Ed. 530, 15 Ann..< !as.

645: of a municipal ordinance distinguishing between those having cows inside and those outside a city; Adams v. City of Milwaukee, 228 U. S. 572, 33 Sup. Ct. 610, 57 L. Ed.; a provision of one gas rate act for the municipality and another for individual consumers; Willcox v. Gas Co..

212 U. S. 19, 29 Sup. Ct. 192, 53 L. Ed. 3S2.

15 Ann. Cas. 1034; a discrimination between the residential and commercial portions of a city as to the height of buildings based on practical and not merely aesthetic grounds; Welch v. Swasey. 214 U. S. 91, 29 Sup. Ct. 567, 53 I- Ed. 92"; or excepting churches from a statute limiting the height of buildings; ran v. Preston, 108 Md. 220, 70 Atl. 11".

2:;