Continuing, the court deny that the notes of the bank were issued by the State, or that they contained a pledge of the credit of the State. The fact that the State was the exclusive stockholder of the bank is held immaterial. Quoting from Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank the principle is declared that "the United States does not, by becoming a corporation, identify itself with the corporation." Upon the contrary, by becoming a partner in or the owner of stock of a trading company "it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself."7

In Darrington v. Bank of AlabamaR the doctrine of the Briscoe case was reaffirmed. In this case the State was not only the sole stockholder of the bank but had pledged its faith for the ultimate redemption of its notes. This, however, it was held, did not operate to transform the notes into state-emitted bills of credit for the reason that the bank had corporate property of its own which was primarily liable and sufficient for the payment of the notes. It was admitted that some reliance might have been placed upon the State's guaranty, but this liability, the court declared, was altogether different from that of a State on a bill of credit. It was remote and contingent, and it could have been nothing more than a formal responsibility if the bank had been properly conducted. No one received a bill of this bank with the expectation of its being paid by the State."

6

In the Virginia coupon case of Poindexter v. Greenhow the court held that interest coupons cut from bonds issued by the State and made receivable by the State in payment of taxes due it, were not bills of credit. Though promises to pay money, and

69 Wh. 904; 6 L. ed. 244.

7 A strong dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Story.

8 13 How. 12; 14 L. ed. 30.

9114 U. S. 270; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 903; 29 L. ed. 185.

the credit of the State pledged therefor, and receivable by the State for taxes, the coupons were not issued or emitted as a circulating medium or paper currency.

In Houston, etc., Ry. Co. v. Texas1o a warrant drawn by state authorities in payment of an appropriation made by the legis lature for a debt due by the State and payable upon presentation if there should be funds in the treasury, was held not to be a bill of credit within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition.

§ 479. Ex Post Facto Legislation.

By Section X, Clause I of Article I, the States are forbidden to pass any ex post facto law. The same prohibition is laid upon the federal legislature by the third clause of Section IX, and the force of this prohibition has been sufficiently considered in the preceding chapter.

§ 480. Equal Protection of the Law.

As in the case of due process of law, the requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment as to equal protection of the law receives specific incidental consideration, throughout this treatise. It is, therefore, not necessary here to do more than state the general meaning of the term.

Shortly stated, the requirement is not that all persons (including corporations) shall be treated exactly alike, but that where a distinction is made there shall be a reasonable ground therefor -one based on administrative or political necessity or convenience, or on economic needs. Thus in the exercise of the States' powers of taxation or of police, or of other powers, classifications of the persons or properties to be affected may be made. But, when such classifications are made, the laws must operate uniformly upon all the members of each class. This subject is else where particularly discussed in connection with the law of inheritance taxes and special assessments.11

10 177 U. S. 66; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 545; 44 L. ed. 673.

11 See §§ 520-527.

§ 481. Corporations Protected.

Corporations equally with natural persons are entitled to the protection of the clause. "The inhibition of the amendment

was designed to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hostile legislation. Under the designation of person there is no doubt that a private corporation is included. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose, and permitted to do business under a particular name, and have a succession of members without dissolution." 12

But is is to be observed that as to foreign corporations, a State having the constitutional right to say whether a corporation not chartered by itself shall do business within its limits (interstate commerce excepted) the State may impose upon such corporations as conditions precedent to the enjoyment of the privilege, such special conditions as it may see fit.13

Perhaps the best general statement of the scope and intent of the provision for the equal protection of the laws is that given by Justice Field in his opinion in Barbier v. Connolly," in which, speaking for the court, he says:

"The Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that no State' shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' undoubtedly intended, not only that there should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty or arbitrary spoliation of property but that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the pre

12 Pembina Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 737; 31 L. ed. 650.

13 But see the discussion as to the right of the State to prevent foreign corporations from exercising the federal right of removing suits brought against them into the federal courts (Section 571). See also, generally, the chapters dealing with the control of the States over Interstate Commerce. 14 113 U. S. 27; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; 28 L. ed. 923.

vention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of anyone except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition, and that in the administration of criminal justice no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon one than such as is prescribed to all for like offenses. But neither the Amendment, broad and comprehensive as it is, nor any other amendment was designed to interfere with the power of the State, sometimes termed its' police power,' to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State, develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity. From the very necessities of society, legislation of a special character, having these objects in view, must often be had in certain districts, such as for draining marshes and irrigating arid plains. Special burdens are often necessary for general benefits, for supplying water, preventing fires, lighting districts, cleaning streets, opening parks, and many other objects. Regulations for these purposes may press with more or less weight upon one than upon another, but they are designed, not to impose unequal or unnecessary restrictions upon anyone, but to promote, with as little individual inconvenience as possible, the general good. Though, in many respects, necessarily special in their character, they do not furnish just ground of complaint if they operate alike upon all persons and property under the same circumstances and conditions. Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited; but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the Amendment. In the execution of admitted powers unnecessary proceedings are often required, which are cumbersome, 'dilatory and expensive, yet, if no discrimination against anyone be made and no substantial right be impaired by them, they are not obnoxious to any constitutional objection. The incon

veniences arising in the administration of the laws from this cause are matters entirely for the consideration of the State; they can be remedied only by the State. In the case before us, the provisions requiring certificates from the health officer and the board. of fire wardens may, in some instances, be unnecessary, and the changes to be made to meet the conditions prescribed may be burdensome, but as we have said, this is a matter for the determination of the municipality in the execution of its police powers, and not a violation of any substantial right of the individual.”

§ 482. Illustrative Cases Arising under the Equal Protection Cause.

The enumeration of some of the specific applications which the requirement of equal protection of the laws has received will sufficiently illustrate its scope and intent.

The provision of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to individuals and to corporations that they shall not by state law be excluded from the enjoyment of privileges which other persons and corporations similarly circumstanced enjoy, or that they may not have imposed upon them burdens which others similarly circumstanced are free from. But no one is guaranteed that in fact, through the fortuitous operation of a law, which in itself is not discriminative, a special burden may not be imposed, or the enjoyment of a privilege taken away. Thus, for example, in Strauder v. West Virginia a state law was held invalid which denied to members of the colored race the right to act upon juries, the court saying, "the law in the State shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the State." But in Virginia v. Rives16 and other cases1 it is held that the fact that it happens that no negroes are in fact drawn upon the jury, or vice versa,

15 100 U. S. 303; 25 L. ed. 664.

16 100 U. S. 313; 25 L. ed. 667.

15

that

17 Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; 26 L. ed. 567; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110; 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; 27 L. ed. 354; Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 583; 42 L. ed. 1012.