452 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
munities of a citizen of the United States and of his property with- 
out due process of law. Judge Miller adheres to his views as to what 
are privileges and immunities of the United States citizenship ex- 
pressed in the Slaughter-house cases. The other question, as to 
a deprivation of property by a too severe operation of prohibitory 
legislation upon existing articles, he declines to consider in con- 
nection with this case, as he finds that the preceding law of Iowa 
which the act in question superseded was almost if not quite as 
severe. He indicates, however, a disposition to follow Wynehamer 
vs. The People in that respect, citing that case with approval. 
Judge Field and Judge Bradley each filed a concurring opinion 
distinguishing the case from the Slaughter-house cases. They take the 
opportunity once more to argue against the conclusion in the latter 
cases. They affirm that the claim that the Louisiana law was a 
police regulation was a mere pretext, and that its real object was to 
confer an unlawful special privilege, and once more that the granting 
of such a privilege would be a taking away of the privileges and im- 
munities of citizens of the United States from those who suffered 
by it. The evident reluctance of the court to pass directly upon 
the question whether total prohibition would be a deprivation of 
property in existing liquors without due process of law could not 
fail to bring that question again before the court, and did not, as 
we shall see. 
In 1874, too, the case of * Minor vs. Happersett, again involving 
the construction of the fourteenth amendment, was passed upon. 
Mrs. Virginia Minor, a free white citizen of Missouri, applied to 
Happersett, a registrar of voters in that state, to be allowed to regis- 
ter as a voter at the presidential election of 1872, and was re- 
fused. She brought suit against him for such refusal, and judgment 
on demurrer to her claim was given in favor of Happersett. This 
was affirmed by the Missouri court of last resort, and the case 
taken by her to the federal Supreme Court, as involving a 
denial of privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United 
States. 
Chief Justicé Chase argued from various statutes that it must 
be admitted that women were citizens and always had been, 
and if the right of suffrage was one of the privileges of a citizen 
of the United States, they must be allowed to have it under the 
fourteenth amendment. He declined, however, to admit this. He 
127 Wall, 162. 
