498 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
o’clock the following morning in a public laundry in the city of 
San Francisco ; an ordinance of the city required that within cer- 
tain limits, for the sake of public health and security from fire, such 
work should not be done without a license from the city authori- 
ties and a certificate of the fitness of the premises used for the pur- 
pose, and not at all between the hours named. He claimed that 
the law and the ordinance passed in accordance with it were in 
violation of both federal and state constitutions, and especially of 
the fourteenth amendment. The state courts sustaining the convic- 
tion, he obtained a writ of error to the federal Supreme Court. 
That court, in an opinion by Justice Field, says the purpose 
sought is a public one and the regulation such as municipal authori- 
ties are entitled to make and declined to interfere with it. The 
fourteenth amendment in declaring that no state shall deprive any 
person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or 
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of 
the laws, undoubtedly intended not only that there 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 personal and civil rights : 
“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 pro- 
mote 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 re- 
sources and add to its wealth and prosperity. From the very necessities. 
of society, legislation of a special character having in view these objects 
must often be had in a certain district, such as for draining marshes and 
irrigating arid plains; special burdens are often necessary for general 
benefits.” 
The provisions of this ordinance though severe were found de- 
signed to answer a public purpose and apparently imposed in good 
faith. 
In *Wurtz vs. Hoagland such police legislation for the pros- 
perity of the state of New Jersey was under consideration. It pro- 
vided that on application of at least five owners the board of 
managers of the State Geological Survey should examine any tract of 
marshy or boggy land, and if they thought it for the public interest 
and that of the owners affected, make surveys and report a system 
1 114 U. S., 606 (1884). 
