The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 213

_Cotton gins:_ in a State where cotton gins are held to be public utilities and their rates regulated, the granting of a license to a cooperative a.s.sociation distributing profits ratably to members and nonmembers does not deny other persons operating gins equal protection when there is nothing in the laws to forbid them to distribute their net earnings among their patrons. Corporations Commission _v._ Lowe, 281 U.S. 431 (1930).

_Fish processing:_ stricter regulation of reduction of fish to flour or meal than of canning. Bayside Fish Flour Co. _v._ Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).

_Food:_ bread sold in loaves must be of prescribed standard sizes, Schmidinger _v._ Chicago, 226 U.S. 578 (1913); food preservatives containing boric acid may not be sold, Price _v._ Illinois, 238 U.S. 446 (1915); lard not sold in bulk must be put up in containers holding one, three or five pounds or some whole multiple thereof, Armour & Co. _v._ North Dakota, 240 U.S. 510 (1916); milk industry may be placed in a special cla.s.s for regulation, New York ex rel. Lieberman _v._ Van De Carr, 199 U.S. 552 (1905); vendors producing milk outside city may be cla.s.sified separately, Adams _v._ Milwaukee, 228 U.S. 572 (1913); producing and nonproducing vendors may be distinguished in milk regulations, St. John _v._ New York, 201 U.S. 633 (1906); different minimum and maximum milk prices may be fixed for distributors and storekeepers; Nebbia _v._ New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934); price differential may be granted for sellers of milk not having a well advertised trade name, Borden's Farm Products Co. _v._ Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 251 (1936); oleomargarine colored to resemble b.u.t.ter may be prohibited, Capital City Dairy Co. _v._ Ohio ex rel. Attorney General, 183 U.S. 238 (1902); table syrups may be required to be so labelled and disclose ident.i.ty and proportion of ingredients, Corn Products Ref. Co.

_v._ Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).

_Geographical discriminations:_ legislation limited in application to a particular geographical or political subdivision of a State, Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co. _v._ Board of Improvement, 274 U.S. 387, 391 (1927); ordinance prohibiting a particular business in certain sections of a munic.i.p.ality, Hadacheck _v._ Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915); statute authorizing a munic.i.p.al commission to limit the height of buildings in commercial districts to 125 feet and in other districts to 80 to 100 feet, Welch _v._ Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909); ordinance prescribing limits in city outside of which no woman of lewd character shall dwell, L'Hote _v._ New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587, 595 (1900).

_Hotels:_ requirement that keepers of hotels having over fifty guests employ night watchmen. Miller _v._ Strahl, 239 U.S. 426 (1915).

_Insurance companies:_ regulation of fire insurance rates with exemption for farmers mutuals, German Alliance Ins. Co. _v._ Lewis, 233 U.S. 389 (1914); different requirements imposed upon reciprocal insurance a.s.sociations than upon mutual companies, Hoopeston Canning Co. _v._ Cullen, 318 U.S. 313 (1943); prohibition against life insurance companies or agents engaging in undertaking business, Daniel _v._ Family Ins. Co., 336 U.S. 220 (1949).

_Intoxicating liquors:_ exception of druggists or manufacturers from regulation. Ohio ex rel. Lloyd _v._ Dollison, 194 U.S. 445 (1904); Eberle _v._ Michigan, 232 U.S. 700 (1914).

_Lodging houses:_ requirement that sprinkler systems be installed in buildings of nonfireproof construction is valid as applied to such a building which is safeguarded by a fire alarm system, constant watchman service and other safety arrangements. Queenside Hills Realty Co. _v._ Saxl, 328 U.S. 80 (1946).

_Markets:_ prohibition against operation of private market within six squares of public market. Natal _v._ Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621 (1891).

_Medicine:_ a uniform standard of professional attainment and conduct for all physicians, Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz _v._ North, 271 U.S. 40 (1926); reasonable exemptions from medical registration law, Watson _v._ Maryland, 218 U.S. 173 (1910); exemption of persons who heal by prayer from regulations applicable to drugless physicians, Crane _v._ Johnson, 242 U.S. 339 (1917); exclusion of osteopathic physicians from public hospitals, Hayman _v._ Galveston, 273 U.S. 414 (1927); requirement that persons who treat eyes without use of drugs be licensed as optometrists with exception for persons treating eyes by the use of drugs, who are regulated under a different statute, McNaughton _v._ Johnson, 242 U.S.

344 (1917); a prohibition against advertising by dentists, not applicable to other professions, Semler _v._ Oregon State Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 (1935).

_Motor vehicles:_ guest pa.s.senger regulation applicable to automobiles but not to other cla.s.ses of vehicles, Silver _v._ Silver, 280 U.S. 117 (1929); exemption of vehicles from other States from registration requirement, Storaasli _v._ Minnesota, 283 U.S. 57 (1931); cla.s.sification of driverless automobiles for hire as public vehicles, which are required to procure a license and to carry liability insurance, Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. _v._ Cincinnati, 284 U.S. 335 (1932); exemption from limitations on hours of labor for drivers of motor vehicles of carriers of property for hire, of those not princ.i.p.ally engaged in transport of property for hire, and carriers operating wholly in metropolitan areas, Welch Co. _v._ New Hampshire, 306 U.S. 79 (1939); exemption of busses and temporary movements of farm implements and machinery and trucks making short hauls from common carriers from limitations in net load and length of trucks, Sproles _v._ Binford, 286 U.S. 374 (1932); prohibition against operation of uncertified carriers, Bradley _v._ Public Utilities Commission, 289 U.S.

92 (1933); exemption from regulations affecting carriers for hire, of persons whose chief business is farming and dairying, but who occasionally haul farm and dairy products for compensation, Hicklin _v._ Coney, 290 U.S. 169 (1933); exemption of private vehicles, street cars and omnibuses from insurance requirements applicable to taxicabs, Packard _v._ Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924).

_Peddlers and solicitors:_ a State may cla.s.sify and regulate itinerant vendors and peddlers, Emert _v._ Missouri, 156 U.S. 296 (1895); may forbid the sale by them of drugs and medicines, Baccus _v._ Louisiana, 232 U.S. 334 (1914); prohibit drumming or soliciting on trains for business for hotels, medical pract.i.tioners, etc., Williams _v._ Arkansas, 217 U.S. 79 (1910); or solicitation of employment to prosecute or collect claims, McCloskey _v._ Tobin, 252 U.S. 107 (1920). And a munic.i.p.ality may prohibit canva.s.sers or peddlers from calling at private residences unless requested or invited by the occupant to do so. Breard _v._ Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951).

_Property destruction:_ destruction of cedar trees to protect apple orchards from cedar rust. Miller _v._ Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928).

_Railroads:_ forbid operation on a certain street, Richmond, F. & P.R.

Co. _v._ Richmond, 96 U.S. 521 (1878); require fences and cattle guards and allowed recovery of multiple damages for failure to comply, Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Humes, 115 U.S. 512 (1885); Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co.

_v._ Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889); Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. _v._ Emmons, 149 U.S. 364 (1893); charge them with entire expense of altering a grade crossing, New York & N.E.R. Co. _v._ Bristol, 151 U.S. 556 (1894); makes them responsible for fire communicated by their engines, St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. _v._ Mathews, 165 U.S. 1 (1897); requires cutting of certain weeds, Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. _v._ May, 194 U.S. 267 (1904); create a presumption against a railroad failing to give prescribed warning signals, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. _v._ Ford, 287 U.S. 502 (1933); require use of locomotive headlights of a specified form and power, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. _v._ Georgia, 234 U.S. 280 (1914); make railroads liable for damage caused by operation of their locomotives, unless they make it appear that their agents exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, Seaboard Air Line R. Co.

_v._ Watson, 287 U.S. 86 (1932); require sprinkling of streets between tracks to lay the dust, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. _v._ Police Court, 251 U.S. 22 (1919).

_Sales in bulk:_ requirement of notice of bulk sale applicable only to retail dealers. Lemieux _v._ Young, 211 U.S. 489 (1909).

_Secret societies:_ regulations applied only to one cla.s.s of oath-bound a.s.sociations, having a membership of 20 or more persons, where the cla.s.s regulated has a tendency to make the secrecy of its purpose and membership a cloak for conduct inimical to the personal rights of others and to the public welfare. New York ex rel. Bryant _v._ Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928).

_Securities:_ a prohibition on the sale of capital stock on margin or for future delivery which is not applicable to other objects of speculation, e.g., cotton, grain. Otis _v._ Parker, 187 U.S. 606 (1903).

_Syndicalism:_ a criminal syndicalism statute does not deny equal protection in penalizing those who advocate a resort to violent and unlawful methods as a means of changing industrial and political conditions while not penalizing those who advocate resort to such methods for maintaining such conditions. Whitney _v._ California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

_Telegraph companies:_ a statute prohibiting stipulation against liability for negligence in the delivery of interstate message, which did not forbid express companies and other common carriers to limit their liability by contract. Western Union Teleg. Co. _v._ Commercial Milling Co., 218 U.S. 406 (1910).

[1105] Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. _v._ Harrison, 301 U.S. 459 (1937).

[1106] Smith _v._ Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (1931).

[1107] Mayflower Farms _v._ Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 266 (1936).

[1108] Buck _v._ Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

[1109] Skinner _v._ Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

[1110] Yick Wo _v._ Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

[1111] Fisher _v._ St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361 (1904).

[1112] Gorieb _v._ Fox, 274 U.S. 603 (1927).

[1113] Wilson _v._ Eureka City, 173 U.S. 32 (1899).

[1114] Gundling _v._ Chicago, 177 U.S. 183 (1900).

[1115] Kotch _v._ Pilot Comm'rs., 330 U.S. 552 (1947).

[1116] Yick Wo _v._ Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). _Cf._ Hirabayashi _v._ United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), where the Court sustained the relocation of American citizens of j.a.panese ancestry on the ground that in this case the fact of origin might reasonably be deemed to have some substantial relation to national security. It was careful to point out however, that normally distinctions based on race or national origin are invidious and hence void.

[1117] Ohio ex rel. Clarke _v._ Deckebach, 274 U.S. 392 (1927).

[1118] Patsone _v._ Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914).

[1119] Heim _v._ McCall, 239 U.S. 175 (1915); Crane _v._ New York, 239 U.S. 195 (1915).

[1120] Truax _v._ Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915).

[1121] Takahashi _v._ Fish & Game Comm'n., 334 U.S. 410 (1948).

[1122] Terrace _v._ Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923).

[1123] 332 U.S. 633 (1948).

[1124] Ibid. 647, 650.

[1125] Holden _v._ Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898).

[1126] Bunting _v._ Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917).

[1127] Atkin _v._ Kansas, 191 U.S. 207 (1903).

[1128] Keokee Consol. c.o.ke Co. _v._ Taylor, 234 U.S. 224 (1914); _see also_ Knoxville Iron Co. _v._ Harbison, 183 U.S. 13 (1901).

[1129] McLean _v._ Arkansas, 211 U.S. 539 (1909).

[1130] Prudential Insurance Co. _v._ Cheek, 259 U.S. 530 (1922).

[1131] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Perry, 259 U.S. 548 (1922).

[1132] Mountain Timber Co. _v._ Washington, 243 U.S. 219 (1917).