1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 445 
tions, as in its judgment it may think proper on all subjects; and still 
further, such a construction followed by the reversal of the judgments of 
the state of Louisiana in these cases would constitute this court a perpet- 
ual censor upon all legislation by the states on the civil rights of their own 
citizens, with authority to nullify such as it did not approve as consistent 
with those rights as they existed at the time of the adoption of this 
amendment.” 
‘‘The argument, we admit, is not always the most conclusive which is 
drawn from the consequences urged against the adoption of a particular 
construction ofan instrument; but when, as in the case before us, these 
consequences are so serious, so far-reaching and pervading, so great a 
departure from the structure and spirit of our institution, when the effect 
is to fetter and degrade the state governments by subjecting them to the 
control of Congress in the exercise of power, heretofore universally con- 
ceded to them, of the most ordinary and fundamental character, and 
when in fact it radically changes the whole theory of the relations of the 
state and federal governments to each other and of both these govern- 
ments to the people, the argument has a force that is irresistible in the 
absence of language which expresses such a purpose too clearly to admit 
of any doubt. We.are convinced that no such results were intended by 
the Congress which proposed these amendments nor by the legislatures 
of the states which ratified them.” 
Going on, Judge Miller describes some of the ‘‘ privileges and 
immunities of citizens of the United States,’’ mentioning the right 
of passage into and across other states, vindicated in ’Crandall vs. 
Nevada, and quotes Chief Justice Taney’s “declaration on that sub- 
ject which has been given before. The right to claim protection 
on the high seas and in foreign dominions, to assemble and peti- 
tion for redress of grievance and to the privilege of the writ of 
habeas corpus are pronounced federal rights guaranteed by the 
United States constitution. . 
The claims that the Louisiana law in question deprived of prop- 
erty without due process and that its action was a denial of equal 
protection of the laws to the butchers are brushed lightly aside. As 
to the first he only calls attention to the fact that the provision is 
not a new one in constitutional law, and that such acts as the one 
in question had never been held to fall within its prohibition in all 
the litigation over these terms since they were first substantially 
adopted in Magna Charta. The second he sets aside as not within 
the purpose of the amendment which had been simply to provide 
protection for the negroes. 
16 Wall, 36. BESO nG Pensa 
