the Fourteenth Amendment, make a classification among its people 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, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 159, 160, 165. In Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79, there was a difference of opinion in the court as to what was necessary to be decided, but all agreed that a state enactment regulating the charges of a certain stock yards company, and which exempted other like companies from its operation, was a denial of the equal protection of the laws and forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. In Connolly v. Union Sewer Company, 184 U. S. 540, 552, 562, 563, 564, the question arose as to the validity, under the equality clause of the Constitution, as to the validity of a statute of the State of Illinois, forbidding, under penalty, the existence of combinations of capital, skill or acts for certain specified purposes, but exempting from its operation agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer. By reason of this exemption the statute was adjudged to operate as a denial of the equal protection of the laws, and was, therefore, void. The court observed that such a statute was not a legitimate exertion of the power of classification, rested upon no reasonable basis, was purely arbitrary, and therefore denied the equal protection of the laws to those against whom it discriminated. It said: "We conclude this part of the discussion by saying that to declare that some of the class engaged in domestic trade or commerce shall be deemed criminals if they violate the regulations prescribed by the State for the purpose of protecting the public against illegal combinations formed to destroy competition and to control prices, and that others of the same class shall not be bound to regard those regulations, but may combine their capital, skill or acts to destroy competition and to control prices for their special benefit, is so manifestly a denial of the equal protection of the laws that further or extended argument to establish that position would seem to be unnecessary."

The present case is distinguishable from the Connolly case. The classification there involved was of persons alike engaged in domestic trade, which trade, the court said, was of right "open to all, subject to such regulations, applicable alike to all in like conditions, as the State may legally prescribe." Now, no one can be said to have the right, secured by the Constitution, to use the country's flag merely for purposes of advertising articles of merchandise. If everyone was entitled of right to use it for such purposes, then, perhaps, the State could not discriminate among those who so used it. It was for the State of Nebraska to say how far it would go by way of legislation for the protection of the flag against improper usetaking care, in such legislation, not to make undue discrimination against a part of its people. It chose not to forbid the use of the flag for the exceptional purposes specified in the statute, prescribing the fundamental condition that its use for any of those purposes should be "disconnected from any advertisement." All are alike forbidden to use the flag as an advertisement. It is easy to be seen how a representation of the flag may be wholly disconnected from an advertisement and be used upon a newspaper, periodical, book, etc., in such way as not to arouse a feeling of indignation nor offend the sentiments and feelings of those who reverence it. In any event, the classification made by the State cannot be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary or as bringing the statute under condemnation as denying the equal protection of the laws.

It would be going very far to say that the statute in question had no reasonable connection with the common good and was not promotive of the peace, order and well-being of the people. Before this court can hold the statute void it must say that and, in addition, adjudge that it violates rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. We cannot so say and cannot so adjudge.

Without further discussion, we hold that the provision against the use of representations of the flag for advertising articles of merchandise is not repugnant to the Constitution

of the United States. It follows that the judgment of the state court must be affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM dissented.

It is so ordered.

CITIZENS' SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 238. Submitted January 7, 1907.-Decided March 4, 1907.

The repealing section of the Judiciary Act of 1887-1888 did not reach § 8 of the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, and that section is still in force. Jellinik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U. S. 1, 10.

A suit brought by owners of stock of a railroad company for the cancellation of deeds and leases under and by authority of which the properties of the company are held and managed is a suit within the meaning of § 8 of the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, as one to remove incumbrances or clouds upon rent or personal property and local to the district and within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the district in which the property is situated, without regard to the citizenship of defendants so long as diverse to that of the plaintiff, and foreign defendants not found can be brought in by order of the court subject to the condition prescribed by that section, that any adjudication affecting absent non-appearing defendants shall affect only such property within the districts as may be the subject of the suit and under the jurisdiction of the court.

Non-resident defendants appearing in the Circuit Court under protest for the sole purpose of denying jurisdiction do not waive the condition in § 8 of the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, that any judgment of the court shall affect only property within the district.

THIS suit in equity was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, the Belleville and Southern Illinois Railroad Company, the St. Louis. Alton and Terre

Haute Railroad Company, all Illinois corporations (to be hereafter called, respectively, the Illinois, the Belleville, and Terre Haute companies), and the United States Trust Company, a New York corporation. The last named corporation was never served with process and did not appear in the suit. The case presents a question as to the jurisdiction of the court below.

The plaintiff, an Ohio corporation, is the holder of four hundred shares of the common stock of the Belleville Company, and sues as well in its own as on the behalf of all other stockholders of that company or beneficiaries, who may choose to come in and bear their proportion of the cost and expenses of the proceedings. Assuming the allegations of the bill to be true, the suit is not a collusive one, and could be properly brought by a stockholder of the Belleville Company, making that company a defendant.

The bill refers to various instruments, deeds and leases, as follows: A deed of October 1st, 1895, between the Terre Haute Company, the Illinois Company and the Belleville Company, whereby the railroad and properties of the Belleville Company, then held by the Terre Haute under a lease executed in 1866, were transferred to the Illinois Company for a period of ninety-nine years; a deed of September 10th, 1897, to which the Belleville and Terre Haute Companies were parties and which purported to transfer the title to all the railroad properties of the former to the latter company; a lease of September 15th, 1897, by the Terre Haute Company to the Illinois Central Railroad Company, confirming the above lease of October 1st, 1895, and covering, among other properties, the Belleville railroad, extending from Belleville, in St. Clair County, Illinois, to Duquoin, Perry County, in the same State; and a deed of February 17th, 1904, between the Terre Haute Company and the Illinois Company, purporting to convey to the latter company all the railroad properties, corporate rights and franchises of the former company.

The plaintiff prayed that these leases and deeds, so far as they affect or purport to affect the properties, franchises, rights or liabilities of the Belleville Company be cancelled and declared void, and that that company be required to return and account for whatever consideration it may have received under such leases and deeds to the party or parties from whom the consideration may have moved.

The bill charges, in substance, that said deeds were illegally and fraudulently procured by the Illinois Central Railroad Company, and by means of those instruments, and by various improper schemes, that company has acquired not only complete control over and possession of the Belleville Company, and all its properties but has managed, and is continuing to manage those properties, in its own interest and in total disregard of the rights of holders of the common stock of the Belleville Company. Indeed, it is charged that what the Illinois Central Railroad Company has done, is doing, (and, unless restrained, will continue to do), has practically destroyed the value of such stock.

The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree ordering the defendant, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, to account for and pay over to the Belleville Company, or to a receiver to be appointed for that company, such proportion of the yearly gross earnings as the Belleville Company is entitled to under the lease executed by and between the Belleville Company and the Terre Haute Railroad Company, bearing date October 1st, 1866; such accounting to cover each fiscal year, or part thereof, from the time when the Illinois Central Railroad Company first acquired the railroad properties of The Belleville Company as lessee or sub-lessee under the lease executed on or about the first of April, 1896, up to the time of such accounting; further, for "an order appointing a receiver for The Belleville & Southern Illinois Railroad Company, with the usual powers of such receivers; and that the Illinois Central Railroad Company, through its officers and agents, to be ordered to surrender and deliver to said receiver all the